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,
>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
>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