[NCUC-EC] Interim Asian Representative

[Edward Morris]

1. I had already indicated my support for both Rafik and Peter, on list. I
believe I was the first person to support Rafik once he was proposed and as
I recruited both Peter and Patrick to run for the EC position, and
indicated on list that I was fine with either, I felt that was sufficient,
in the  absence of a formal call for a vote with a time limit for a
response, to deal with the matter. Was there a call for an email meeting
that I missed ( my apologies for not responding if there was)? I was only
aware of a proposal for one. Obviously my bad. Thanks, Bill, for staying on
top of this.

As another response from me appears to be required I formally hereby
announce my support for Rafik and Peter. Thank you for continuing to serve
Rafik and welcome aboard Peter.

2. Tapani rules? Is it really necessary to get personal about it?

I presumably could name the former 'system' after a number of EC members,
both past and present, but why? That was the system under which I once made
a proposal, in agreement with a NCUC member who serves on the SG PC,  for a
CD topic, saw the proposal supported by another EC member ( who responded
by writing 'cool' ), and then  saw that proposal ignored by the powers that
be after that one such power expressed a lack of enthusiasm for the idea.
No big, past history and I presume unintentional, but count me in as
supporting a system with more formality, greater transparency and increased
accountability. The things, by the way, we keep asking the Board to do
ICANNwide.

We appear to be having some teething problems on the road to greater
openness that I suggest could be fixed by more formality, not less. I'd
suggest, in the future, formal email meetings be clearly announced and
labeled  as such and that calls for votes also be labeled as such with a
defined time limit for a response.

Won't it be great to someday have bylaws combined with operating procedures
that clearly define these procedures? Isn't it great that by trying to
normalise things a bit now we're discovering issues that we can deal with
in the bylaws rewrite? Thank you Tapani and Bill for leading the
conversation...

Ed

Sent from my iPad


On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 7:41 AM, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> On Jul 30, 2013, at 2:34 PM, Tapani Tarvainen <ncuc at TAPANI.TARVAINEN.INFO>
> wrote:
>
> I would suggest convening an email meeting:
> Everybody who agrees with the proposal post a statement
> to that effect ("+1" will do), I'll write minutes
> documenting the decision as an EC meeting -
> shouldn't take more than a day (or an hour if everybody
> is online).
>
>
> Yes, it shouldn't take more than a day.  But as you see, it does.  And
> this is why the EC has never in its history followed the Tapani Rules and
> required that every decision involve a formal response from each EC member.
>
> So right now three of us have bothered to reply approving the appointments
> of Peter and Rafik.  We need one more to declare quorum and make it
> official (of course we don't have much in the way formalized rules about
> voting since it was never the intention of previous ECs to vote on
> everything, but I presume we can live with a simple majority.  Or maybe we
> should spend a few weeks debating that in dribs and drabs…
>
> Ed and Carlos I would really appreciate it if you could hit reply and say
> something one way or another so we can get Peter set up and I can respond
> to ICANN's reminder messages on the nomcom slot.
>
> Thanks
>
> Bill
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-ec/attachments/20130805/602c9f31/attachment.html>