RE: [council] FW: [ga] nomination procedures

[Dennis Jennings <Dennis.Jennings@ucd.ie>]

Theresa,

I think you have put it succinctly.  I suggest we go with that suggestion.

Dennis

--------------------------------
Dennis Jennings
Dennis.Jennings@ucd.ie
Phone:  +353 87 220 8225 (Mobile)
Fax:  +353 1 495 1324

On Monday, November 15, 1999 7:41 PM, Theresa Swinehart 
[SMTP:Theresa.Swinehart@wcom.com] wrote:
> 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).