RE: [registrars] Stepping down from the Constituency Chair nomination

[Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> On candidate has not accepted, has not been 
> seconded, no confllict of interest statement 
> submitted.

Bob, not sure what you meant in the above comment, but to be clear, all
of the candidates have been seconded. And all except John Berryhill
have accepted and posted their COI statements.

John Berryhill
Nominated for Treasurer by Bhavin.
No seconds.

John Berryhill
Nominated for Secretary by Bob.
Seconds from Marcus, Richard, and Rob.
No Acceptance or COI.

Bob Connelly
Nominated for Treasurer by John Wong.
Seconds from Marcus and Richard.
Acceptance on 4/21/06, COI on 4/26/06.

Jon Nevett
Nominated for Chair by Adrian.
Seconds from Jay, Marcus, and Rob.
Acceptance and COI on 4/26/06.

Tim Ruiz
Nominated for CTO/Vice Chair by Bhavin.
Seconds from Richard, Rob, and Marcus.
Acceptance and COI on 4/26/06.

Finally, Bhavin placed the deadline for nominations as 4/26/06. Not sure
what the procedure would be to reopen it, or if there is one. But there
isn't exactly an avalanche of interest. 

Tim 


 -------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [registrars] Stepping down from the Constituency Chair  
nomination
From: "Robert F. Connelly" <BobC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, April 27, 2006 4:25 pm
To: Registrars Constituency <registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

At 11:35 AM 4/27/06, Rob Hall wrote:
 I am a little surprised by the timing of your call for more people to
step up.  Not because I disagree with the content and sentiment of the
message, but rather because you seem to be soliciting nominations after
you have announced the nomination period closed.
Dear Rob: I can fully understand your statements.  I think there are
extenuating circumstances.

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:

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 no less than 7 days. 

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.

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.

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.


   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.
On candidate has not accepted, has not been seconded, no confllict of
interest statement submitted.


   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.

Is it not inappropriate to be soliciting nominations after the time
frame has closed ?
They were not closed.

   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 ? 
I see no such problem.  I maintain objectivity.  My interest is in the
credibility of Excom and its effect upon the Constituency.

But I fullly agree with you in general, but, IMO, there are extenuating
circumstances.

Cordially, BobC