[council] FW: [ga] nomination procedures

[Theresa Swinehart <Theresa.Swinehart@wcom.com>]

For those who have been following the GA list, there is the development of a
direction which isn't in my view acceptable. I think the note below that
John's sent to the GA is useful, and also raises some pretty important
points. I  think the NC needs to work together and get a clear statement out
about what it will, and will not, accept in the way of nominations for the
GA chair extremely soon.

So let's get to work on something now. Here are some basic suggestions to
get started:

1) The NC will accept a list of 5 nominated names which the GA has selected.
2) The NC expects the GA membership to indicate its level of support for
these nominees (e.g., endorsements).
3) The NC expects to have a short background, and statement of purpose and
objectives the nominee in the role as Chair of the GA. This should include:
what the nominee can do for the GA and its role in the DNSO; how they intend
to interact with the NC and the 7 constituencies within the DNSO; and
anything else the nominee considers important.

I'd like to suggest we have these ready to post in as soon a time frame as
possible. I realize we're all very busy, but the direction the dialogues
been going has me quite concerned.

Theresa


-----Original Message-----
From:	owner-ga@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga@dnso.org] On Behalf Of John C
Klensin
Sent:	Monday, November 15, 1999 2:16 PM
To:	Jonathan Weinberg
Cc:	ga@dnso.org
Subject:	Re: [ga] nomination procedures

Jonathan,

This isn't going to make me very popular, but...
(i) I think we need to ask the NC-whether formally or informally-to tell us
the minimum number of nominees they will accept.  Whatever sympathies one
does or does not feel for the "they are pushing us around and we need to
trap them" school of thought, the reality is that the GA _cannot_ trap the
NC.  Depending on how the ICANN rules are read, they might plausibly respond
to a single nomination by bouncing it back for more or even by deciding
that, if the GA doesn't want to live up to its responsibility to present
multiple people, they will just conduct a nomination and election process of
their own,  Or, I suppose we could try to make a very specific proposal to
them and see if they would agree to it.   One way or the other, I think this
needs to be "proposed procedure and agreement first, selection later" or we
are due for another version of the walk in the weeds that seems to have
become a DNSO habit.
(ii) I am really depressed about the state of the GA relative to S/N ratio
on the list, behavior of some bad actors, silence of the majority, etc.
Perhaps no one else shares that view/ feeling.  But, if it is generally
held, I'd suggest that any "voting" procedure will be questionable and
strongly questioned by someone, just because of the noise and difficulties
in determining the voting population amidst allegations that some people are
actually electronic surrogates/ disguses for others and questions as to
whether the behavior of some (whether NC members or list members who have
been so offended by others to become offensive themselves) are sufficiently
close to felonous behavior (as the GA might define such a thing) to forfeit
the right to vote.
So I would suggest that we return to a (somewhat more clear) variation of
the theme used to nominate people for consideration for the board, i.e., a
nomination and some minimum threshold of endorsers, rather than an election.
It is obviously important that we be clear about the rules and conventions
this time, e.g., who can nominate or endorse and whether any special value
is to be attributed to extra endorsers.   But, since I can't read the
current procedures as requiring the NC to accept the GA's first choice, even
if such a choice could be clearly determined, I don't see a lot of point in
trying to cut things more finely than that.
john

-----------

* On Monday, 15 November, 1999 13:15 -0500 Jonathan Weinberg
<weinberg@mail.msen.com> wrote:

> 	 The NC has asked for nomination procedures for the GA chair
> 	 election by Friday; it's in our interest actually to supply
> some.  As an initial matter, I see two proposals on the table
> as to how the GA might nominate X (a natural number greater
> than one) candidates for the position of GA chair:
>
> [1] Each GA member casts X votes (that is, one vote for each
> of X candidates) with preferential weighting (Roberto's
> proposal) [2] Each GA member can vote for as many candidiates
> as he chooses (my proposal-it's the system we used to
> "vote" for the DNSO's ICANN Bd members).