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

[Victoria Carrington <vcarrington@shapirocohen.com>]

Theresa, Dennis:

I agree for the most part with both of you in that at least two of the
proposals currently being discussed in the GA are not "acceptable"
procedurally.  However, there appear to be at least eight proposals in
total under consideration (according to a recent posting by Kent Crispin,
who has taken the trouble to list and summarize them), including some that
are serious attempts to put together a workable structure and which address
 your points 1) and 2) at least in part.  I am also encouraged by the fact
that there appears to be a genuine and constructive dialog developing among
GA members, that is rising above the disturbing events of the past few weeks.

I suppose my real motivation in writing is to express both my general
agreement with your suggestion below, but tempered by a concern that
perhaps we shouldn't jump the gun too much in sending out a strongly worded
statement to the GA prematurely.  At the same time, I realize that the
deadline for submission of proposals to the NC by the GA is at the end of
the week, so, as usual, we do not have a great deal of time to decide how
to proceed.  I particularly agree with your point 3), and that the GA
should be encouraged to incorporate it into their proposals.  However, I'd
be interested in everyone's thoughts as to how best to do this.

Victoria



At 05:31 PM 15/11/99 , you wrote:
>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).
>

Shapiro Cohen 
Group of Intellectual Property Practices
Ottawa, Canada

Telephone: (613)232-5300
Facsimile: (613) 563-9231
________________________________________________________________________

This correspondence is intended for the person to whom it is addressed 
and contains information that is confidential, and/or privileged to the 
named recipient, and may be proprietary in nature. It is not to be used 
by any other person and/or organization.  If you have received this 
e-mail in error, please notify us immediately by telephone (collect) 
and/or return e-mail.