[CCWG-ACCT] SOAC-Accountability question, for reply by 11-Sep-2017

[Nigel Roberts]

Firstly, I disagree with this. Moreover, incumbents do not necessarily 
win (at least in ccNSO Council elections).

More importantly, however, it seems that you are partly saying here that 
we sorta shouldn't be having elections because they don't really achieve 
their purpose. (That's probably not what you are saying, at all, right?

I personally have mixed feelings about term limits.

They are a traditional way to bring on 'new blood' which is healthy for 
an organisations.

But I have also been involved in other organisations where term limits 
are a negative thing.

In some cases there just isn't a queue of people banging at the 
Boardroom or Council chamber door volunteering to give up their time for 
free (or non-commercial rates). Indeed finding volunteers is a prime task.

What the inclusion of term limits into the constitutional form does in 
these particular cases is to remove experience and expertise fromt he 
governing body and replace with with people who at best are no better 
than the people they replace (but without the necessary experience of 
getting things done) and at worst, aren't as good.

Term limits become a tool of organisational capture by permanent staff 
when this happens. (See the ironic and sardonic programme "Yes, 
Minister", Margaret Thatcher's favourite TV show, which she always 
insisted was documentary in nature).

In non-profit and volunteer organisations it's a good principle to vote 
the best person in, and then keep re-electing them as long as they are 
prepared to carry on. (Perhaps this is what you were referring to, 
regarding the incumbent effect?).


So perhaps the answer might be the inclusion of term limits which are 
sufficiently long to allow the organisation to benefit from their 
choice, yet provide an ultimate exit date for the benefit of the 
office-holder as well as the the organisation.

Our two elected Board members serve a maximum of nine years. That's more 
than enough for both officse-holder and electorate - after a long time 
in office, peoples' thinking can (but not necessarily does) become 
ossified, to everyone's detriment.

Nigel Roberts

PS: The recommendation to "consider" is fine by me, incidentally, as it 
preserves the subsidiarity rule.



On 08/09/17 23:31, avri doria wrote:

> true that incumbents can be voted out, running against an incumbent is
> something people at ICANN often shy away from for a variety of reasons.