[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [council] Election of Permanent NC Members
YJ Park wrote:
> >The Registrar constituency will be holding elections with sufficient
> >time to allow the newly elected NC members to participate in the
> >voting for the ICANN board members.
> Do you think "Registrar" constituency can finish its own election
> schedule prior to Oct. 8th, which has been set by ICANN?
Indeed. It's very sim'ple: we knew that from Santiago on, so we have
worked out a schedule to meet that deadline. I can't see the problem here.
> Could you let me have more clear-cut schedule rather than this?
> The reason I ask this way is, at least to me,
> there have been only three weeks left or so,
> which seems to me just too short to implement such kind of election.
Why too short? First when we submitted our consituency application to
ICANN we stated that we were elecing the pNC members after the
approval form the Board (as we did in June) and that we would hold new
elections 90 days after the end of the testbed period, and in any case
before the end of the year.
Then we all knew before Santiago that ICANN CoD would request that the
new elections be hold prior to LA meeeting. So we simply spent five
minutes on that: if we had to elect the NC reps by October 8th,then we
need to start 15 or 20 days before that date. Indeed, the importnat
thing was taking the DECISION that we were holding new elections (ev
erybody agreed) so for nearly a month now everybody knew that by mid
september the offical nomination period would start (it has started
today) and that there will be a one-week voting period.
Last time we used a two-week period: one for nominations, and
discussion and one for voting. Please bear in mind that discussion
continues during the votng week and that member can vote twice or as
menay times as they want, last time counting (nobody voted twice last
time, in fact).
The system worked. The only thing that failed is that some nominees
were not in fact willing to run...but they have not expressed this to
our secretariat. This time we will require an express acceptance or
declination to the secretariat.
Tge only thing we all need to meet deadlines and milestons is
commitment and work ;-)
> However, people here don't seem to care that much about NC election,
> instead, people have shown very strong concern in Board election,
> which has one more week than permanant Names Council one.
I don't follow you here. Why do you say that Board elections have one
more week than NC ones? Please remember that everybody knew "before
Santiago" (unofficially) and form Santiago at latest (officailly) that
the time schedule was the one we now have on the table. Each
consituency had got plenty of time to organixe the elctions. And
anyone willing to run for the NC has got plenty of time to made his
mind up during the last month. The fact that the offical call for
eletions has not estarted in our constituency until today does not
mean that we have not discussed these elections (we have discussed
many aspects related to them, in fact). I insist that I fail to see
the "suprise" factor you seem to detect in this process.
As for worrying ro not about NC election, you are right in pinting out
that they deseerve much less public attention. Perhaps the general
rule is "internal consituency business, unless we detect a problem".
But bear in mind that the fact that ccTLDs elected two people form the
same region, or the fact that IPC has three citizens form North
American counrtires has got "lots" of attention and comets. And, for
that, I have also expressed my absolute disagreement with the
Non-commercial const. application where stating that you were not
holding new elections for the next six months.....
But here the rule is self-organiztion: each constiuency decides its
process; the rest only react on perceived problems (real or not).
> What I concern at this moment is people from GA might raise a proposal that
> as far as the Board election is not carried by qualified and legitimate
> NC memebers, they might reject the Board election result
> only because we didn't follow the rules set by ICANN.
Again I would need futher explanation of this point. Indeed we will
face lots of problems if we do not follow the ICANN rules. Infact we
are electing directors to a corporation's board and we have to abide
to its bylaws....
I guess that the criticism we will get form the GA, or more precisely
for some strange e-mail addresses subscirbed there is in case the NC
elects people not suported by this or that individual. But we have to
If you mean that the selection of the Board could be cirticized in
case the "electorate" is a mixture of "newly elected" NC nmembers and
"old" provisional NC members, here I would agree with you. I, for one,
would be VERY disappointed if this is the case. As I stated below
there are harldy any excuse: all consituencies are relatively small
groups (in electoral terms) and we have had plenty of time to orgnaixe
the new elections.
Let me summarize my views here. Some constiuencies (business; IPC;
NCDNH; ISPC) selected their pNC reps "prior" to their offical
recognition by the Board. This is perfectly OK, at least in my view,
provided that they accept to hold new elections within a reasonable
window time after recognition.
The reasons for this new elections are twofold: on one hand, at the
moment of those early elections, most people within each constiuency
did not knew one each orther. It is not surpsing that so many
"consituency promoters" are sitting here riht now (Javier, me,
Michael, Raul...and many others). This gives a decisive advantage to
those taking the leadeershiop in the preparation, and penalises those
joining it. After a few weeks, once the charter is approved, the
mailinglist set up and the real discussions start, this "proponent's
advantage" begins to fade off, as quickly as other parties want to get
involved. In a short time al lthe constituency knwos all the active
members and therfore elections are more equitable than those hold
"before approval", ie, before coming into existnce.
The second reason (and I know this quite well as I was involved in the
launching of more htan one consituency...) is that many, mahy parties
refuse to take part in "yet another proposal" They are fed up with all
the failed atemps and discusssions we had during the past years and
only hoin when thigs are up and running, ie, one thigngs become
"seiours". I don't share this behaviour, but I understand it, and it
is perfectly legitimate.ñ This is also why keeping the pre-approval
pNC reps for too long is unacceptably unfair: the newcomers will
expect (and they are right) that "founding members" will not try to
hlod pu the "power" beyond a short reasnable period to get organized,
just that: to get organized and started.
Please see that, in my mind, all these resons are independnet form any
requirment form ICANN BoD to hold new elections. Its about fairness
and trnasparency in our own process. And indeed I am not the only one
tho believe this: many, in fact most constiuencies decided that they
were having new, permanent, elections in very short timefirmes (form
two to six months).
Lets review the situation constiuency by constiue cy.
* gTLD Registries: Ther eis no justification hatsoever to require new
electons here ;-) the const membershp is 100% of its possible
membership,and has not changed form tis beginning.
*ccTLD Registries: they elected "provisional" members while they were
prpeparing the real elections. As the gTLD registries and the
registrars, they have a "finite" electorate, in this case, the admin
contacts (if this correct?) of the ccTLDs currently in the root. They
needed some extra time to contact all of them, but they finally run
the elections. As they reached neqrly 100%of their electorate, they
run the elections after the consitu4ncy being approved and running and
their electorate is stable (in certain sense atleast) there is no need
to hold new elections now.
[please note that this has nothing to do with the fact that their
election fialed to comply with the geographical diversity requiremnt.
This "could" be a reason for holding new elections, and whould be in
my view, but this is a differnt issue]
* Registrars. WE were the only consituency to hold the elctions
"after" coming into existance (some weeks after approval). But we took
the compromise to hold new elections and we are already into it. We
will be ready by October 8, so no more considerations are needed.
[on the other "hot potato", geodiversity, we enforced it in the pNC
elections and keep it now,. The only "problem" is that, perhaps, we
will ask the Noard to take residency into consideration, instead of citizenship]
Now note again that the three constituencies just discussed (what we
could call, in Dennis's termsm the "suply side") have all in common to
have clear, pre-defined potential membership. not only gTLDs and
ccTLDs are what they are, but also registrars are currently defined as
gTLD registrars approved (accredited or selceted to be accredited) by
ICANN. I guess that some ccTLDs have decided not to take part in the
NC elections or are not active at all within the constituency.
Similarlysome accredited registrars have decided not to join the
constituency (as they are not interested in these activities) or
simply have forgotten to do so (despite our secretariat continuous
efforts). But none of these consituencies can "reach out" to "new"
members. We cannot "invnet" new members
The situation in the remaining four consituencies is exactly the
reverse: they don't have a pre-defined; limited potentaial membeship
but jsut some genrally defined membership conditions that can be met
by a large number of entities. This is importnat when assessing the
relative merits of reach out proposals, provisional NC member status
and so on.....
* ISPC: they elected the pNC reps in Berlin, just before the approval
by the Board. I learn from Hiro's mail that hey are organizing the
permanent NC elections and that they will bo done in advnance of
October 8. Perfect.
[ISPC achieved geodiversity thanks to Siegfried's resginging in favour
of Hiro. Even if I have not fuloy understood Hiro0s explanation, they
seem to work in th dirction of ensuring it this time once again]
* Business and Commercial Const: Like ISPC and IPC they came to Berlin
with the pNC selected. Like ISPC and registrars, they committed to
hold new elections before the end of the year. I have not seen any
explanation form Havier, Tgeresa or Jon now, but I am told that they
are also in the lectoral process right now and that they will also be
done before October 8.
[I hope that this time they will not elect two reps form the same region....]
* IPC: another of the consts. that selcted their reps befgore getting
approved. Another one that committed to hold new elections in a
I am told that IPC will porbably "not" elect the NC in time for the
Board elections. This is most unfortunate in my view, and an issue the
NC as a whole should consider. Moreover, their geographical diversity
rules are rather special (I am not say8ng I disagree with them, but
they are based on the int'l nature of the member organsiations, not on
the citizenship or residnece of the concrete NC emmebers) whcih
probably are not in full alignment with the current Bylaws.
* NCDNH: If I got it right, this const is NOT hlding new elections.
So, lke IPC they will come to the Board elections with provisional
members, and still selected "prior" to the coming into legal existence
of the constituency (/ie, prior to its approval by the Board).
As I wrote to the NC, the Board and the elected reps there in
Santiago, I think this is also most unfortunate. The very history of
this particular consituency has been specially difficult: in fct it
was the only one that was NOT approved in Berlon, buyt onoy three
months later in Santiago. It is the ne that has got more proposals,
counterproposals, mailinglists, websites, amenmendtns and compormises.
Let's say that it has been the more controverisla one in tis formation
,for many reasons that now is not worth summarising. What I wanted to
point out is that its very laborious inception has made that many
potential participnats have declined to do so so fr. Many orgs, as I
have pointed above, are willing to work with exsiting and working,
stble strcutures, but are averse to mailinglist fights and proposals'
deluges. We all have seen that many names among the orginal propsoals
are not in the exisintg constiuency (while many others have joined). I
therefore feel that keepiong the pNC reps for six months as proposed
is absolutely unfair, and that having them participate in the
Directors elections (the most importnat task of the NC during 1999) is
hardly acceptable. Internal reasons or predifned time schedules are no
esxcuse: we all are masters of our own schedules. And, franjlym
telling potential members that "the deal is done" regarding NC reps
until El Cairo is not very encouraging.
I don0t know whether you were thinking about these issues, YJ, but
here you have my thoughts ;-))