Subject: RE: Alternative (H)

From: Christian Huitema <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 09:03:50 -0700

> > This text has the advantage of not conflicting with ISOC's by-laws,
> > which is good. However, the algorithm as presented does not
completely
> > resolve the deadlock problem. As proposed, the phrase "failing which
> > the
> > candidate is considered to be rejected" seem to only apply to the
case
> > where the CB has no defined decision rule and resorts to majority
> > voting.
> 
> In which way does (H) not solve the deadlock problem ?
> 
> Do mean that (H) does not solve the deadlock problem in the
> case that the CB has a voting process that can deadlock ?

Yes. I would propose the following friendly amendment to (H):

    Delete the existing text in section 4, and replace with this:

         4. The confirming bodies decide their consent according to a
rule
            of their own choosing.

    CHANGE THIS:

    If the confirming bodies have no such specific rule, the confirming
    bodies can decide their consent by ensuring that at least
    one-half of the confirming body's sitting members agree to each
    candidate's confirmation, failing which the candidate is
    considered to be rejected.

    TO:

    If a confirming body has no such specific rule, it should
    decide its consent by ensuring that at least one-half of its
    sitting members agree to each candidate's confirmation.
    (Remove: failing which the candidate is considered to be rejected.)

         The agreement may be decided by conducting a formal vote, by
         asserting consensus based on informal exchanges (e.g. email),
or
         by whatever mechanism is used to conduct the normal business of
         the confirming body.

         The confirming body must make its decision within a reasonable
         timeframe.  The results from the confirming body must be
reported
         promptly to the nominating committee. (Add:) A candidate that
is
         not confirmed should be considered rejected.

---

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 12:09:18 -0400

On Thursday, May 22, 2003, at 12:03 America/Montreal, Christian Huitema 
>     (Remove: failing which the candidate is considered to be rejected.)

	This is confusing to me.  I'm unable to identify the change
in meaning resulting from the proposed edit, so I must be missing
a big clue or two.

	Please help me understand.

Thanks,

Ran