[NCUC-DISCUSS] [] Out of contact

William Drake william.drake at uzh.ch
Fri Jun 28 15:48:08 CEST 2013


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.

On Jun 28, 2013, at 3:35 PM, avri doria <avri at ella.com> wrote:

> What counterfactuals?
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from a T-Mobile 4G LTE Device
> 
> 
> 
> -------- Original message --------
> From: William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch> 
> Date: 06/28/2013 08:47 (GMT-05:00) 
> To: ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org 
> Subject: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] [] Out of contact 
> 
> 
> Hi
> 
> On Jun 28, 2013, at 2:01 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG> wrote:
> 
> > +1
> > 
> > Chair chooses, EC approves.
> > 
> > or a mid point;
> > 
> > Chair chooses, EC can overrule.
> > 
> > But makes no sense to leave the EC out of the process.
> 
> 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.  
> 
> 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.
> 
> Bill
> > 
> > 
> > On 28 Jun 2013, at 00:22, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
> > 
> >> 
> >> We could use the same rules, i.e., have the EC select the replacement
> >> in both cases if there's no 2nd (&c) candidate available.
> >> In a way it would be more consistent than having the chair do it,
> >> but I think either way would be fine, as long as it is clearly specified.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
> 

**********************************************************
William J. Drake
International Fellow & Lecturer
  Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
  University of Zurich, Switzerland
Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, 
  ICANN, www.ncuc.org
william.drake at uzh.ch  
www.williamdrake.org
***********************************************************

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20130628/1ee68a75/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
Ncuc-discuss mailing list
Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss


More information about the Ncuc-discuss mailing list