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

From: Kent Crispin (
Date: Tue Aug 15 2000 - 06:28:39 PDT

  • Next message: Milton Mueller: "Re: [ncc-charter] Re: charter - question and some suggested new text"

    On Tue, Aug 15, 2000 at 06:52:22PM +0900, Adam Peake wrote:
    > 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
    > alternates.)
    > 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.

    This is certainly the path that I would advocate, at least for the time
    being. In the longer run, I think the charter needs very serious work.

    I've examined the charters for each of the other constituencies. Most
    of them are in no better shape. From a purely pragmatic point of view,
    I believe that the IPC has the best of the lot, which is not surprising,
    given that lawyers are used to writing such documents.

    I'm not sure, for example, that the idea of an "adcom" is working so
    well, and there is a possibility we might be better served by people who
    adopt fixed roles. For example, if we elected a treasurer, that person
    would be elected with a specific idea of the role they were to play,
    with duties spelled out in the charter. Right now we are plagued by
    people wondering if they are really supposed to be doing something.

    But wholesale revision of the charter is beyond what we can do now,
    that's for sure.


    Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Aug 15 2000 - 06:29:00 PDT