The simple solution to our disagreement is to have Adcom succession when there
is no replacement candidate. I will redraft the amendment to reflect this later
today.
Why have replacement candidates? There are two important reasons.
1. It is more representative.
Candidates from different regions will hold very different views and have
support from different parts of the constituency. If a candidate from, say, Asia
Pacific gains 40 votes and the fourth Adcom candidate gains only 10, the large
number of people who voted for the AP candidate will have their representation
on the Names Council completely eliminated if the 10-vote candidate is their
successor. However, if the AP candidate picks a replacement that is both:
* from the same region and
* acceptable to the people who voted for the original candidate,
then their views are still represented.
Here is a specific example. Suppose that Vany of Latin America runs for NC and
comes in third place. Suppose that Jamie Love of North America also runs and
comes in 4th. Vany would be the NC representative. Now, under my proposal, Vany
can pick a Latin American region replacement candidate that has similar views
and a similar constituency. So if she has to resign, the larger number of
members who voted for her are still represented.
Under Kent's proposal, if Vany resigned she would be replaced by Jamie Love. Now
I like Jamie a lot, but I am quite sure that his views and the constituency
members he is closest to are *very* different from Vany's. So why should he
inherit Vany's seat on the Names Council?
2. It is more practical.
Resignation of a NC member is a voluntary act. It is quite possible that a NC
member who ought to resign will refuse to do so, and just hang on while failing
to attend meetings or do any work. Why would they do this? Well, maybe they
don't like the views or the personality of the person who would replace them.
Note that there is no way in our charter for the Adcom or the constituency to
force someone to resign for non-attendance. The replacement candidate proposal
avoids this problem. A NC member who cannot perform will feel more comfortable
resigning if they know that their replacement is someone from the same region
and with compatible views.
Really, the proposal I have submitted is much more sensible. Let's put aside
personal antagonisms and support what is best for the NCC, OK? Also, let's keep
in mind that resignations are probably rare.
One final point. Kent's suggestion that this new proposal is not acceptable to
ICANN is completely wrong. The old, "alternate" proposal allowed the alternate
to fill in for a NC member at any time. That violated the by-laws because we
elected more than three members to NC. This new proposal does not do that. The
replacement candidate cannot serve on the NC unless the original candidate
resigns. There is no doubt about the legality of the new proposal. But it is
easy to clear up -- ask Andrew McLaughlin. I'm sure he will confirm that there
is no problem. It is simply a succession method.
--MM
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Aug 14 2000 - 08:39:38 PDT