[registrars] Stepping down from the Constituency Chair nomination

[Tim Ruiz]

Since John's nomination was not seconded until the 26th he has until the
close of today to accept and post his COI. From our ROP:

Each nomination must be seconded by at least one additional Member in
good standing. The nominee must accept the nomination and provide a
conflict of interest statement before the later of the close of the
nomination period or 2 days from the date of the nomination, in order
for the nomination to be valid.

I'd like to try and confirm John's intention today. Then, if necessary,
we put out another call for Secretary but still move ahead the rest.


Tim 
 

 -------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [registrars] Stepping down from the Constituency Chair   
nomination
From: "Nevett, Jonathon" <jnevett at networksolutions.com>
Date: Fri, April 28, 2006 7:47 am
To: "Rob Hall" <rob at momentous.com>, "Robert F. Connelly"
<BobC at awesome-goo.com>, "Registrars Constituency"
<registrars at gnso.icann.org>

  
 Bhavin/Bob:   I suggest that you extend the nomination period for the
position of Secretary.  This would give John B. the ability to accept
the nomination and file a COI within the deadline if he is interested
in the position, and would give Bob and any others the ability to
nominate someone outside of the U.S. if they so desire.  Thanks.   Jon 
 
 
   From: owner-registrars at gnso.icann.org
[mailto:owner-registrars at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Rob Hall
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2006 11:20 PM
To: Robert F. Connelly; Registrars Constituency
Subject: RE: [registrars] Stepping down from the Constituency Chair
nomination   
 
 Bob, 
   
 You should not be suggesting that Bhavin withdrawing from the race at
the time of his choosing was somehow wrong or inappropriate.  Bhavin
has served our constituency proudly for the last 2 years.  His reasons
for withdrawal and the timing of his announcement are not for us to
decide.  And I for one do not believe he has acted in a way to
deliberately do harm to the constituency.  Just the opposite in fact. 
   
 As well, you keep claiming we have somehow lost something because we
are no longer as geographically diverse as only US based people have
stepped up to answer the call. 
   
 It only serves to diminish those that have put their name forward and
are willing to VOLUNTEER to work on behalf of the constituency.  I can
not support statements that lend themselves to somehow tarnishing the
current nominees for volunteering just because they happen to live in
the US.  You are basically suggesting the current slate is
inappropriate in some way.  
   
 I also believe opening the nominations because a candidate you
supported withdrew would be wrong. The right to nominate is yours.  In
fact, you could have nominated as many people as you wanted at anytime.
   If you really thought geo diversity was such a huge issue, why did
you not nominate anyone else during the nomination period ? 
   
 The right to accept the nomination or withdraw was solely Bhavins.  I
would also point out that Bhavin had no need to actually withdraw.  He
never accepted the nomination.  He took the high road to take the time
to write us a letter and even explained some of his reasoning's.  But
as of midnight last night, he was actually no longer a candidate as he
had not accepted the nomination by the close of business.  He did
absolutely nothing inappropriate 
   
 I also would point out that the current candidates must still get a
minimum number of positive votes from the constituency to be elected. 
If you feel the current candidates are not appropriate for whatever
reason, you may exercise your right to vote against them.  If the will
of the constituency agrees, then the current nominees will not be
elected into the position.  It is the will of the constituency that
will ultimately decide our officers. 
   
 We count on our secretary to know our bylaws and to enforce them
without any personal bias.  To somehow try and use your position as
secretary to re-open nominations because of your personal beliefs or
your thinking that your nomination or vote was wasted is not
appropriate. 
   
   
   
 Rob. 
   
   
   
   From: owner-registrars at gnso.icann.org on behalf of Robert F. Connelly
Sent: Thu 27-Apr-06 8:59 PM
To: Registrars Constituency
Subject: RE: [registrars] Stepping down from the Constituency Chair
nomination 
 At 03:11 PM 4/27/06, Tim Ruiz wrote:

>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.

Dear Tim:  Oops, sorry about that.

<snip>

>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.

It seems to me that Bhavin's act of withdrawing on *the_day_after* he
proposed closing nominations has some implications.  Our geographical
diversity depended upon his candidacy   *Bhavin* should therefore reopen
nominations.  Those who nominated and seconded his nomination, and those
of
us who stood by silently and approved, deserve no less than that:

Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 12:19:18 +0530
Thank you Marcus and Richard for nominating me,

I have given this some thought, and had some discussions with Jon. I had
taken up the position of Chair after significant deliberation 2 years
ago.

end quote:

Cordially, BobC