[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [council] Summary of AAA's concerns on NC elections
Dear Amadeu and NCers,
>C) NCDNH and IPC have not expresed their commitment to select the
>permanent NC reps prior to the ICABB Direcortrs election (and rumours
>say that they will probably no, even if we don't have cofnirmation
First I feel sorry for not giving you explicit info
on NCDNHC's permanent election,
which I had regarded that everybody must be aware of it.
And it turned out to be against my expectation.
Let me explain NCDNHC election schedule as follows.
The next election will take place prior to 2000.2.20.
The bylaws may be revised prior to the next election as appropriate.
As many of you have been informed that NCDNHC formally started
from Santiago, not from Berlin just like the rest of constituencies so far.
From its inceptive recognition by the Board, it has been announced that
NCDNHC would follow its own timescale, which is a bit different from
those six constituencies' one.
With regard to the specific schedule of our permanent NC election
instead of prior to 2000. 2 will be discussed together with our Bylaws
revision issue during our monthly Administrative Committee teleconference
of NCDNHC. The next one will be held on Sept. 28.
Even though we can be called provisional NC members in the light of
its formation process, however including myself, Raul and Kathy,
three of us have been elected through legitimate election process,
the strongest reason ICANN Board wants to watch permanent NC
members by election not by another selection process, that's my
understanding on this "Provisional" vs "Permanent" issues.
Therefore, the present NCDNHC NC members would complete our official
term of "SIX" months, until 2000. 2. 20 to serve those who voted for
us in the past NCDNHC election, which has been held last August.
I hope this could be an answer to NCDNHC permanent NC election process.
I also would like to hear from the other constituecies whose schedule
hasn't been clarified yet.
For the last, I appreciate Amadeu for your efforts to summarize and
clarify on pNC matter.
>D) ccT—Ds permanent representtion fails to abide to the geographical
>diversity requirements. This is also the case for the current IPC
>representation. We still dn't know whether the new NC members form
>registrars, ISPC and B&CC will abide to that requirement, even if the
>consituencies have expressed their intention to comply with it.
>Under this light I would personnally be very unhappy if the Directors
>are elected by a NC where at least three consituencies reps are in
>failure with the estblished rules.
>If, and only if, this is the situation, I would like proposing that
>A) NC asks the Board to limit each consituency votes for the Directors
>slection to the maximum number of differeet regions their permanent
>reps have (example: ccTLDs will only have two votes as thir reps come
>form only tow regions; IPC would have only one...)
>B) Consituenciesd that still have the provisional reps sitting in the
>NC at the time of the Direcxtors elections should only be allowed to
>express one vote, as they have failed to organize the permanent NC
>My goal is indeed to limit the cirticism we would fce if we allow a
>mixture of permanent and provisional NC members to vote in this
>importnat isuse, as well as putting some pressure on those
>consituencies whcih not abide to the geographical diversity rule (or
>any ohter one for that purpose) in order to get in line with the Bylaws.
>Just one proposal to be discuussed. What should be clear from now on
>is that I oppose any solution that would imply delyas in the
>elections. Only those failing to comply with the rules should bear the
>burden of their own lack of comliiance, not the whole institution.
>This is the basic rule about responsibility and liabiltiy.....
>Amadeu, who finally decided to catch up with NC archives instead of sleeping.....
>PS: I would appreciate if NCDNH, B&CC and IPC could clarify their
>schedule or lack therof regarding the permanent NC elections.