Re: [ncc-charter] Re: Replacing Section F of the Charter

From: Adam Peake (
Date: Tue Aug 15 2000 - 02:52:22 PDT

  • Next message: Kent Crispin: "Re: [ncc-charter] Re: Replacing Section F of the Charter"

    I think we should drop the idea of alternates.

    Trying to remember the history of this.
    Looking through the list it seems to me there was a messy vote. The vote
    certainly did not indicate consensus. Discussion went on after the vote,
    and was inconclusive (with last words coming down in favor of no

    I suggest we adopt the less contentious path (for all concerned: the
    constituency, ICANN staff, the names council, etc.) and look to adopt a
    version of the Nii Quaynor/Kent Crispin revision.



    >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
    >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,
    >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
    >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
    >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.

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Aug 15 2000 - 02:55:50 PDT