[ncc-charter] Re: Charter revision

From: Kent Crispin (kent@songbird.com)
Date: Fri Aug 18 2000 - 10:34:59 PDT

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

    On Thu, Aug 17, 2000 at 06:37:20PM +0200, Dany Vandromme wrote:
    > 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!

    I have had private conversations with Vany about this. I am in
    complete agreement with this formulation.

    > 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.

    Personally, I would prefer a system where small members get three votes,
    large members get 6 votes, and they can cast them however they choose.
    I suspect that this view is not widely shared, but there is a reason for
    it. :-)

    Note that if you enforce a strict within-region voting policy, and we
    continue the trend of 1 candidate per region, the regions with smallest
    membership in the constituency will never get a NC rep. And no matter
    what, if you enforce strict within-region voting, the regions with the
    most members will over time dominate the NC.

    I would personally prefer a system where we only vote for adcom members,
    and the adcom members rotate through the NC on a strict basis, every 6
    months, with 18 month terms:

        AF, AP, EU, LA, NA, AF, AP, EU, LA, NA...
         6mo 12mo 18mo 18mo 18mo 18mo 18mo 18mo 18mo 18mo...

    (We stagger the terms of the starting group of three, just to get the
    thing going). There are obviously some details to work out, but as it
    is now, LA will rarely get a NC rep.

    Anyway, as I said, this is a complicated issue, obviously not for this
    round of charter revision. But our current scheme is far from optimal,
    in my opinion.

    > 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).

    I agree with all this, as well.

    Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
    kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Aug 18 2000 - 10:36:16 PDT