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

From: Adam Peake (
Date: Wed Aug 16 2000 - 07:07:55 PDT

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

    Milton. My apologies. I read one thing and thought another.

    The alternates proposal involved a sharing of duties, etc. between two
    people. With the alternate taking the NC seat if the main candidate

    Replacement stands with the No.1 in the election then hovers about in the
    wings waiting for a retirement. A bit like the alternate idea, except the
    replacement doesn't actually do anything after they are "elected". On the
    other hand, the 2 Adcom members, 4th and 5th in the election, work for the
    constituency and keep themselves involved. And the replacement just sits
    around waiting for their No.1 to resign.

    This proposal will do nothing to help with the work of the constituency,
    might even discourage Adcom members from taking on more work.

    I would also worry about the possibility of all kinds of fixing - a popular
    replacement helping the election of a weaker first candidate. Of course
    the replacement would most likely never be required to perform any service
    for the constituency, but they might still help elect a candidate who would
    fail in a straight head to head. Only takes a couple of votes to swing

    Note also that our voting records are open - we know who voted for who.

    The replacement proposal might more representative. However, I think we
    should place a higher value on the quality of our elected representatives
    rather than focus only on their region of origin (this is matter of
    delicate balance, I come down in favor of quality.)

    Basically, I think the replacement proposal is a terrible idea.



    >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
    >> >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
    >> >number of people who voted for the AP candidate will have their
    >> >on the Names Council completely eliminated if the 10-vote candidate is
    >> >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
    >> >comes in 4th. Vany would be the NC representative. Now, under my
    >> >Vany
    >> >can pick a Latin American region replacement candidate that has similar
    >> >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
    >> >members he is closest to are *very* different from Vany's. So why should
    >> >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
    >> >don't like the views or the personality of the person who would replace
    >> >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
    >> >avoids this problem. A NC member who cannot perform will feel more
    >> >resigning if they know that their replacement is someone from the same
    >> >and with compatible views.
    >> >
    >> >Really, the proposal I have submitted is much more sensible. Let's put
    >> >personal antagonisms and support what is best for the NCC, OK? Also,
    >> >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
    >> >to fill in for a NC member at any time. That violated the by-laws because
    >> >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
    >> >resigns. There is no doubt about the legality of the new proposal. But it
    >> >easy to clear up -- ask Andrew McLaughlin. I'm sure he will confirm that
    >> >is no problem. It is simply a succession method.
    >> >
    >> >--MM

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Aug 16 2000 - 07:11:19 PDT