<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=us-ascii"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">That we must legislate in order to prevent the chair from acting unilaterally rather than seeking consensus, which I didn't propose to do and which I can't imagine any other chair proposing to do.<div><br><div><div><div>On Jun 28, 2013, at 3:35 PM, avri doria <<a href="mailto:avri@ella.com">avri@ella.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"><div><div>What counterfactuals?</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div style="font-size:75%">Sent from a T-Mobile 4G LTE Device</div><br><br><br>-------- Original message --------<br>From: William Drake <<a href="mailto:william.drake@uzh.ch">william.drake@uzh.ch</a>> <br>Date: 06/28/2013 08:47 (GMT-05:00) <br>To: <a href="mailto:ncuc-discuss@lists.ncuc.org">ncuc-discuss@lists.ncuc.org</a> <br>Subject: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] [] Out of contact <br> <br><br>Hi<br><br>On Jun 28, 2013, at 2:01 PM, Avri Doria <<a href="mailto:avri@ACM.ORG">avri@ACM.ORG</a>> wrote:<br><br>> +1<br>> <br>> Chair chooses, EC approves.<br>> <br>> or a mid point;<br>> <br>> Chair chooses, EC can overrule.<br>> <br>> But makes no sense to leave the EC out of the process.<br><br>Nope. I would be rather surprised if a chair were to seek to appoint an interim EC member without coordinating with the EC, and indeed with the membership. Hence my original suggestion, which I believe conforms with the bylaws, such as they are: if a member continuously does not participate in decision making processes (the clause says 'vote' but we don't, so what) the chair may appoint an interim, in which context of course s/he'd consult with the EC and membership in search of consensus, which is why I asked if anyone had any suggestions. <br><br>I had hoped we could perform this seemingly innocuous task reasonably quickly so I could get some help on board with Durban work etc., but if we prefer to convene a constitutional convention on the matter, ok. But please let's not premise the party on counterfactuals.<br><br>Bill<br>> <br>> <br>> On 28 Jun 2013, at 00:22, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:<br>> <br>>> <br>>> We could use the same rules, i.e., have the EC select the replacement<br>>> in both cases if there's no 2nd (&c) candidate available.<br>>> In a way it would be more consistent than having the chair do it,<br>>> but I think either way would be fine, as long as it is clearly specified.<br><br>_______________________________________________<br>Ncuc-discuss mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Ncuc-discuss@lists.ncuc.org">Ncuc-discuss@lists.ncuc.org</a><br>http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss<br><br></div></blockquote></div><br><div apple-content-edited="true">
**********************************************************<br>William J. Drake<br>International Fellow & Lecturer<br> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ<br> University of Zurich, Switzerland<br>Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, <br> ICANN, <a href="http://www.ncuc.org">www.ncuc.org</a><br><a href="mailto:william.drake@uzh.ch">william.drake@uzh.ch</a> <br><a href="http://www.williamdrake.org">www.williamdrake.org</a><br>***********************************************************<br>
</div>
<br></div></div></body></html>