RE: [council] Re: NC Chair Election

["Chicoine, Caroline G." <CCHICOINE@thompsoncoburn.com>]

The question to me should not be whether there is another person willing to
run against Philip.  I have no doubt that we could ultimately coax someone
else into doing it.  In fact, I was in that very situation when Dennis
Jennings stepped down and I agreed to Chair for a short period of time until
I realized the time commitments involved.  I can say that my tenure, albeit
short, paled in comparison to what Philip has been able to accomplish.  

The question to me is do we have a candidate that has shown through their
activities on the NC and in the DNSO their commitment to the cause, has the
time needed to do a good job, and has the objectivity necessary to be a good
leader.  The reason that we even started talking about the NC election at
all is because I raised it as an AOB at the last meeting.  I apologize that
I did not think of it earlier but no one else did for that matter, or at
least did not peep up about it.  Moreover, I made clear at the last meeting
that my intention was to come up with a way to allow Philip to rerun.  While
we have not had months to think about it, I am not raising it on the eve of
the election.

You state "From the point of view of the election, it seems unlikely that
anyone would vote in favor of a motion to permit Philip's term to be
extended, only to vote against him on the following day."  The motion is
being voted on the day before the nomination period begins not the day
before the vote.  The purpose of the nomination period is for us all to get
to know the candidates better.  If the right candidate steps forward.  For
example, while I now know that you are interested in running, I do not know
very much about you and look forward to the nomination period to learn more.
I personally would have preferred not knowing who the other candidate(s)
might be before voting on the motion because even if I knew, I would not
have the benefit of the nomination period to get to know them better,
determine if I believed they were qualified, and consult with my
Constituency accordingly.  Moreover, people could now read into anyone voted
in favor of the motion as some indication that they were not in favor of
your running, even though that may not be the case at all. 

You also state "For me personally, as simple an action as voting on the
motion according to my conscience (which would be against) might have the
taint of seeming as though I did so as a move to unseat Philip."  You state
this as if it is a bad thing.  Anybody interested in running should be able
to run.  There is absolutely nothing wrong in "unseating" Philip.  And if
the right candidate presents himself or herself (which of course could be
you or anyone else who might be interested), I am sure the NC will vote
appropriately.  Regardless of the rotation issue, I think everyone is most
concerned at this critical stage about getting the candidate with the right
qualifications to run.  Philip would have a slight advantage over other
candidates because he is the incumbent, but this is always the case in such
a situation (at least in the case where people feel the incumbent has done a
good job). 

Finally, I do not think any of us should presume that there will not be
other candidates willing to run, whether or not the motion passes, so I
think people need to vote on the motion as it stands (with their conscience
to quote Cary).




-----Original Message-----
From: Cary Karp [mailto:ck@nic.museum]
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 4:00 PM
To: council@dnso.org
Subject: [council] Re: NC Chair Election


Quoting Milton:

> I sense another subterranean proxy war.....
>
> As a matter of friendly advice to the other constituencies,
> if you have someone to run as an alternative to Philip
> why not let us know now?

This is a personal response rather than one from the constituency
that I represent. It is intended to prevent at least some amount of
rubble that may amass during the SPW.

Well in advance of any discussion of waiving the NC Rules of
Procedure to which I have been privy, the issue of appointing the
next NC Chair was raised within the gTLD constituency. In the belief
that we were one of three constituencies that would be able to put
forward a candidate, and with the conviction that rotating the chair
among the constituencies was a Good Thing, we discussed who of our
NC reps we would place in nomination.

My name ended up at the top of the list. I am not being coy by
saying that some persuasion was necessary to get me to agree; I do
not lack for demands on my time. However, I firmly believe in the
value of rotation and therefore assented, not expecting anything
other than the chair was going to have a new occupant, whichever of
the three candidate constituencies might supply it.

Had I been asked if I were willing to run against the incumbent, I
would likely have declined outright. Such was not the case, however,
and the gTLDc proceeded at least some way further into the
discussion before I signaled that the changing stage setting was
likely going to alter my own stance.

The way the current motion has been worded, the call for nominations
won't be opened until it has been decided if the current Chair is
eligible for re-election. This means that I wouldn't need to make a
decision about accepting a nomination until it was clear whether or
not the incumbent might also be in the running. Although my most
severe concern is thereby put to rest, the matter is hardly that
clear cut.

I have no interest in being party to any action that might be
perceived as a challenge to Philip. On the other hand, the notion of
changing rules of procedure on the eve of an election specifically
to modify the possible results of that election is alien to all my
prior experience of organizational behavior.

The dilemmas are thus neatly lined up. For me personally, as simple
an action as voting on the motion according to my conscience (which
would be against) might have the taint of seeming as though I did so
as a move to unseat Philip. Declaring my on-going willingness to
accept a nomination could easily have the same effect. From the
point of view of the election, it seems unlikely that anyone would
vote in favor of a motion to permit Philip's term to be extended,
only to vote against him on the following day.

I therefore think that Caroline's assertion that, "nothing in this
amendment is preventing someone running against Philip", does not
adequately describe the situation.

/Cary