Dany Vandromme wrote:
> 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!
This seems OK to me.
> 2) CHARTER
>
> 2-1- ALTERNATE
>
> * 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).
Dany: the replacement candidate concept is NOT the alternate concept that was
proposed last year. A replacement candidate cannot attend NC conference
meetings, etc. That has been ruled as being against the ICANN by-laws. A
replacement candidate's sole purpose is to fill in for an elected NC member
who resigns. And the use of a replacement is voluntary.
> * 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
> side.
Ditto. See comment above. These two points are moot.
> * The constituency, because of its diversity and its variety in points of
> view, needs to have an active and efficient Adcom to run it.
I agree.
> The Alternate
> scheme would weaken the role of the AdCom, which is not desirable.
There is no alternate scheme. Please read the actual proposal, and do not
confuse it with the earlier proposal. There is only a replacement.
I cannot conceive of how the existence of a standing replacement would weaken
the Adcom. If you believe that it would, please explain in detail how. Bear in
mind that both Kathy and I thought that I was in fact her replacement. Did
this fact in any way weaken the Adcom during the past five months?
I do not mind if my proposal is rejected. But if it is rejected, I want it to
be understood and considered on its merits, and not tied to something
different that some of you made up your mind about six months ago.
OK?
I think we can resolve this amicably anbd constructively once the actual
proposal is understood and debated.
--MM
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Aug 17 2000 - 15:14:08 PDT