Re: [council] Election of Permanent NC Members

["YJ Park" <yjpark@nic.or.kr>]

>The Registrar constituency will be holding elections with sufficient
>time to allow the newly elected NC members to participate in the
>voting for the ICANN board members.  

Do you think "Registrar" constituency can finish its own election
schedule prior to Oct. 8th, which has been set by ICANN?
Could you let me have more clear-cut schedule rather than this?
The reason I ask this way is, at least to me, 
there have been only three weeks left or so, 
which seems to me just too short to implement such kind of election.

However, people here don't seem to care that much about NC election,
instead, people have shown very strong concern in Board election,
which has one more week than permanant Names Council one.
STRANGE!!

What I concern at this moment is people from GA might raise a proposal that
as far as the Board election is not carried by qualified and legitimate
NC memebers, they might reject the Board election result
only because we didn't follow the rules set by ICANN.

Do you think we can shirk our responsiblities 
when we encounter such kind of situation?

I'm not sure of it.

Regards,

YJ Park

>I believe we will be asking that
>the ICANN board allow us to use residency instead of citizenship
>for geographical diversity.  We have not set a date yet, as I think
>we want to get some word from the ICANN board whether a waiver
>would be feasible or not.  Perhaps Ken and Amadeu could confirm
>this for me?
>
>Although the other constituencies can share their viewpoints, I
>don't think the pNC as a whole can give any guidance or set requirements
>
>for each constituency (other than that already given by the ICANN
>board.)  Although I agree we have to get the election schedule set
>so we can have new NC members in place before actual elections :-)
>
>Regards,
>Richard
>
>YJ Park wrote:
>
>>  Dear Council, In the process of talking about when and how to elect
>> ICANN Board,I have felt strong concerns in the schedule of "election
>> of permanent NC members".When I tried to get it highlighted prior to
>> the Board election,people on the line seem indifferent of this, as far
>> as I know,whose dead line set by ICANN is Oct. 8th much earlier than
>> board election. When I brought it up again at the last minute of
>> teleconference yesterday,council members expressed their preferences
>> to unfold each constituency'sstatus on election schedule and its
>> result on the NET. So, it's time to get the ball rolling.Why don't
>> you, each constituency, explicitly come up with a specific dateand
>> position on geographical diversity first to wrap up "permanent NC
>> members"prior to winding up "3 board members"? I hope I can hear from
>> you on this matter within 24 hours.Another time pressure?
>> :-)Otherwise, Board election by 19 NC electorates might be snowedunder
>> tons of complaints and objections from General Assemblywith reagrd to
>> its legitimacy.
>