[NCUC-DISCUSS] [] Out of contact

[Tapani Tarvainen]

On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 06:46:12PM +0200, William Drake (william.drake at uzh.ch) wrote:

> It is five days and 27 messages since I replied to Norbert's
> resignation message and suggested following the only procedure we
> have for someone leaving office, Bylaws VII.

If we are going to apply such procedures beyong what the text says,
we could equally well use the chair replacement procedure in IV,
or the generic "change procedural rules" clause in same.

> Anyway, can we agree to an interpretation thereof under which the
> chair appoints an interim as specified only after having consulted
> members here and then worked in the EC to get rough consensus per
> usual,

No. I am very much opposed to "rough consensus per usual" process
in this context. It is not appropriate for EC member selection
(replacement), and it would set a bad precedent.

I would be happy with this if it were done as a formal EC decision,
however.

I don't care much exactly how that is done, as long as it results
in a document (meeting minutes) saying it was decided by the EC.
As I've already said, email would be fine (as would skype of
google hangout or any chat or whatever), if we (the EC) can
agree to call it an EC meeting and write minutes documenting it
(I hereby volunteer do that).

Otherwise, if there's no proper document saying who decided it,
it will in effect be the chair's unilateral decision, regardless
of any preceding consensus-seeking discussion - in effect
the chair extending his powers beyond the bylaws by his
own decision. A power-grab if you will.

I know you don't intend it that way and probably don't even
understand how it can be seen that way, but exactly that kind
of maneuvering, specifically in the context of replacing
board members and the like, has been used in takeovers in other
organizations. I don't want that kind of precedent here.

> and if that proves impossible, after the EC votes (we have no voting
> guidelines either, cross that bridge if we come to it).

I fear that bridge may be getting near, although I hope we can
come up with a unanimous decision in this case.

On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 11:52:59AM -0700, Dan Krimm (dan at musicunbound.com) wrote:
> 
> +1 with the following addendum:
> 
> Usually we like to stay away from ad-hoc decision-making -- we're trying to
> model the procedure-faithful process we'd like to see ICANN follow as a
> whole.
> 
> In this case our formal charter is not up to the task of the moment, so it
> forces us to either do nothing (i.e., delay until we have determined new
> procedure under current procedure) or do something ad hoc to fill the gap.
>
> What Bill suggests is ad hoc, but based on the closest procedure we have
> formally in place to accomplish the task.  So it's not random ad hoc: it is
> structured ad hoc, and one that is a plausible candidate for formal
> procedure in the future.

Agreed except that I don't think it's appropriate for the chair to
decide on the procedure in this situation, but the EC.
To quote our bylaws:

"The Executive Committee shall have the following duties: [...]

2. Establish, revise and change procedural rules to help in the
management and operation of the Constituency."

Extending that to selecting replacement members to the EC is
perhaps stretching it a bit, but not much, and I certainly
don't see anything there giving such power to the chair either.

-- 
Tapani Tarvainen
_______________________________________________
Ncuc-discuss mailing list
Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss