Re: [ncc-charter] Charter revision

From: Dany Vandromme (
Date: Thu Aug 17 2000 - 23:12:38 PDT

  • Next message: Kent Crispin: "[ncc-charter] Re: Charter revision"

    On Thu, 17 Aug 2000, Milton Mueller wrote:

    > 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.
    I saw the difference between the alternate and the replacement. My feeling
    is that, for a fair vote, all candidature should be equivalent.
    If some ballot have 2 names rather than one, the result will be affected
    anyway by the combination effect (that effect can be + or -), depending if
    the second name will attract or repulse. I am sure that a second name will
    not be neutral.
    Second, having some ballot with two names and others with one name is not
    fair, even if the second name is not mandatory. I understand that your
    proposal is aimed to make transition phase (in case of resignation)
    seamless, but to me, this affects the vote itself.

    Last, your proposal will induce an over representation of the 2-names
    region (not in the NC meeting, since we are talking of replacement
    proposal) in the running of the constituency.

    I keep a strong preference for using the next adcom member as interim,
    before organizing a new election, in which the second has a good chance to
    be elected, if he has shown a good voice, presence and activity as a
    regular member of the constituency.
    > > * 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.
    > I think we can resolve this amicably anbd constructively once the actual
    > proposal is understood and debated.
    I did never consider other way to get to conclusion.

    > --MM

    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: | FRANCE

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Aug 18 2000 - 00:30:03 PDT