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

From: Milton Mueller (
Date: Tue Aug 15 2000 - 07:42:35 PDT

  • Next message: Milton Mueller: "[ncc-charter] Charter Section F revision"

    You are talking about a non-existent issue. Please read the proposal. The
    (past, defunct) alternate proposal has no relationship to this one. This is
    a replacement proposal. It is not an alternate proposal. The debate in the
    past has no relationship to this proposal

    m i l t o n   m u e l l e r // m u e l l e r @ s y r . e d u
    syracuse university

    visit the convergence center!

    ----- Original Message ----- From: "Adam Peake" <> To: <> Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2000 5:52 AM Subject: 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 > 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. > > Thanks, > > Adam > > > > > > > > > >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 : Tue Aug 15 2000 - 07:45:29 PDT