DNSO Mailling lists archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[council] Re: NC Chair Election

Quoting Milton:

> I sense another subterranean proxy war.....
> As a matter of friendly advice to the other constituencies,
> if you have someone to run as an alternative to Philip
> why not let us know now?

This is a personal response rather than one from the constituency
that I represent. It is intended to prevent at least some amount of
rubble that may amass during the SPW.

Well in advance of any discussion of waiving the NC Rules of
Procedure to which I have been privy, the issue of appointing the
next NC Chair was raised within the gTLD constituency. In the belief
that we were one of three constituencies that would be able to put
forward a candidate, and with the conviction that rotating the chair
among the constituencies was a Good Thing, we discussed who of our
NC reps we would place in nomination.

My name ended up at the top of the list. I am not being coy by
saying that some persuasion was necessary to get me to agree; I do
not lack for demands on my time. However, I firmly believe in the
value of rotation and therefore assented, not expecting anything
other than the chair was going to have a new occupant, whichever of
the three candidate constituencies might supply it.

Had I been asked if I were willing to run against the incumbent, I
would likely have declined outright. Such was not the case, however,
and the gTLDc proceeded at least some way further into the
discussion before I signaled that the changing stage setting was
likely going to alter my own stance.

The way the current motion has been worded, the call for nominations
won't be opened until it has been decided if the current Chair is
eligible for re-election. This means that I wouldn't need to make a
decision about accepting a nomination until it was clear whether or
not the incumbent might also be in the running. Although my most
severe concern is thereby put to rest, the matter is hardly that
clear cut.

I have no interest in being party to any action that might be
perceived as a challenge to Philip. On the other hand, the notion of
changing rules of procedure on the eve of an election specifically
to modify the possible results of that election is alien to all my
prior experience of organizational behavior.

The dilemmas are thus neatly lined up. For me personally, as simple
an action as voting on the motion according to my conscience (which
would be against) might have the taint of seeming as though I did so
as a move to unseat Philip. Declaring my on-going willingness to
accept a nomination could easily have the same effect. From the
point of view of the election, it seems unlikely that anyone would
vote in favor of a motion to permit Philip's term to be extended,
only to vote against him on the following day.

I therefore think that Caroline's assertion that, "nothing in this
amendment is preventing someone running against Philip", does not
adequately describe the situation.


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>