[ncc-charter] Charter revision

From: Dany Vandromme (vandrome@renater.fr)
Date: Thu Aug 17 2000 - 09:37:20 PDT

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

    Sorry for being silent last few days, but busy with other things, and it
    took me some time to read all the related mails.

    There is a strong confusion between our urgent task of revising the
    charter and the next election round for KK replacement.

    First try to eliminate the second question to work on the first
    one. From what I read in all mails, I found Vany's second proposal the
    most appropriate.

    The vote is both to replace a NC rep and an AdCom member. The procedure
    (and the interest) should be similar (whereas I can imagine that, if Vany
    or myself had resigned from the AdCom, instead of KK from AdCom AND NC,
    debate would have been less active).

    Keeping in mind that:
    -- geographical diversity needs to be respected
    -- NC rep are the members of the AdCom who got the highest three voting

    Vany's second proposal looks OK. In the three regions not represented in
    the NC, two must have as candidate their actual adcom member, who did run
    already for a NC position (rather than for only an AdCom position). The
    last constituency could have any candidate. Then the vote will be for the
    NC seat. The highest score wins. The other two highest scores (respecting
    the geographical diversity) will take (or keep) the two AdCom seats.

    In case of one of the two Adcom member (Vany or myself to-day), doesn't
    want to be candidate for the NC, he should be prepared to be kicked-off by
    someone from the same region getting more votes than him. That is fair
    since he has no mandate to prevent his region from having a NC rep!

    2) CHARTER

    2-1- ALTERNATE

    There are several points to improve, among them the alternate problem
    still raises some controversy.

    * It is certainly useful for a NC rep to have a substitute to attend a
    meeting or a tele-conf when he cannot attend it himself. But after
    attending a NC conference call to-day, I noticed that other constituencies
    afford easily to have not all NC rep participating (even through proxies).

    * It is not in the spirit of the ICANN by-laws (neither in the text
    itself) to have elected alternate(s). I have checked that also on the ASO

    * The constituency, because of its diversity and its variety in points of
    view, needs to have an active and efficient Adcom to run it. The Alternate
    scheme would weaken the role of the AdCom, which is not desirable.

    Therefore I am in favor of not having two-names votes. Milton
    advocates that the candidate knows the person proposed as vice-rep. I
    think that a two-name vote can affect significantly the result of the
    vote, either by making a difference between those proposing an alternate
    and those running alone, or by diminushing the score of a candidate of
    whom the alternate provokes some rejection vote. In any case, the vote
    itself is not so clear because of that.

    For the replacement of any member of the AdCom or NC rep, we should agree
    to have an election. The interim period of the NC seat is taken by the
    first non-NC AdCom member, for the interim period before the election.

    2-2- Geographical diversity

    ICANN starts thinking to have more than 5 geographical regions (Middle
    East countries did raise the problem I guess). may be we should adapt the
    terms of the charter by replacing the "5" by "the number of geographical
    regions". That would not affect the NC rep, but would leave room for a
    fully complete representation in the AdCom.

    An other notion which is not clear, is that any member of a region is free
    to vote for any candidate for an election, i.e. he can vote also for
    candidate of other regions. That can impact significantly the results of a
    vote for only some of the regions reps.

    2-3- Political party membership

    That seems to me terribly difficult to verify whether a political party is
    acting or not as a gov or similar level. Unless knowing perfectly well the
    political situation of all countries, I bet we will never be able to
    distinguish what they are doing (with respect to the NCDNHC eligibility).
    We must therefore accept of reject all of them. My feeling would be to
    accept them (but on a personal point of view, I will have difficulty to
    support the application of some extreme party).

    Same problem may arise in the future with religious organizations.



    Dany VANDROMME | Directeur du GIP RENATER

                    Reseau National de Telecommunications
             pour la Technologie, l'Enseignement et la Recherche

                                      | ENSAM
    Tel : +33 (0)1 53 94 20 30 | 151 Boulevard de l'Hopital
    Fax : +33 (0)1 53 94 20 31 | 75013 Paris
    E-mail: Dany.Vandromme@renater.fr | FRANCE

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Aug 17 2000 - 09:39:07 PDT