<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [registrars] Stepping down from the Constituency Chair nomination
<html>
<body>
At 11:35 AM 4/27/06, Rob Hall wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">I am a little surprised by the
timing of your call for more people to<br>
step up. Not because I disagree with the content and sentiment of
the<br>
message, but rather because you seem to be soliciting nominations
after<br>
you have announced the nomination period closed.</blockquote><br>
Dear Rob: I can fully understand your statements. I think there are
extenuating circumstances.<br><br>
1. The period for nominations is set as "not less than seven
days". But it can be and has often been more than seven
days. This year, we opened nominations much earlier than any other
year. See what the Rules say about closing nominations:<br><br>
<font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=2>III, 1. Whenever a position opens
requiring the election of a Member, the Constituency Chair shall call for
an election and the Secretary shall accept nominations for a period of<b>
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=2 color="#FF0000">no less than
7 days</b>. <br><br>
</font>2. Bhavin, from the Asia Pacific Region, was nominated, accepted
and seconded. His last minute withdrawal removed the small vestige
of regional diversity from the potential Excom and upset the
equilibrium.<br><br>
3. I really don't think I made any statement that nominations were
closed. I *did* post a list of nominees three days ago and pointed
out that *none_of_them* have completed all of the required formalities,
nomination, acceptance, seconding and conflict of interest
statement.<br><br>
4. With the loss of Bhavin's nomination, with *all* other
candidates U.S. citizens, the equilibrium has been upset. There
have been many objections to the "North American Centricity" of
ICANN.<br><br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""> Unless one of the
candidates did not get the second required, or their statements in, I
would assume that we have our slate of candidates.</blockquote><br>
On candidate has not accepted, has not been seconded, no confllict of
interest statement submitted.<br><br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""> I would also assume that
should we have a vacancy in a position that no one was sucessfully
nominated for, that we would have to start the nomination period over
again to let all interested parties come forward.<br><br>
Is it not inappropriate to be soliciting nominations after the time frame
has closed ?</blockquote><br>
They were not closed.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""> And given that you are a
nominee for a new position, should you perhaps be passing the process off
to someone else that is not a nominee, just to keep the optics clean ?
</blockquote><br>
I see no such problem. I maintain objectivity. My interest is
in the credibility of Excom and its effect upon the
Constituency.<br><br>
But I fullly agree with you in general, but, IMO, there are extenuating
circumstances.<br><br>
Cordially, BobC<br><br>
</body>
</html>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|