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

[Victoria Carrington <vcarrington@shapirocohen.com>]

Indeed. 

Another point of concern in the ongoing GA dialog is the number of
instances in which the role and/or authority of the NC in this matter is
apparently misunderstood.  The NC is mandated by the ICANN By-laws to be
"responsible for the management of the consensus building process of the
DNSO", which includes the determination of a process for, and the carrying
out of the nominations and elections of the GA chair.  Having designated
the GA to carry out the substantive work required for the purpose of
proposing nomination procedures, it is our further responsibility in
accordance with the By-Laws, to do as you suggest, namely, to watch the GA
discussions as they unfold, and offer assistance or suggestions, where
deemed necessary.  My hope is that any such suggestions by the NC will not
be seen by GA participants as an attempt to interfere in what may be
incorrectly viewed as being within the exclusive purview of the GA;  rather
that it will be recognized as a means for two complementary parts of the
DNSO to work together to achieve a common goal that should ultimately
benefit everyone in the DNSO.  

While writing the above, I read your second message to the NC list, and
again, I agree completely.  Your point about the constituencies' members
belonging to the GA is correct, although, unfortunately hotly disputed by
many.  Requesting the participation of constituency members complies
strictly with the ICANN By-laws and could be a way to make the GA
discussions more constructive and balanced, through the participation of
additional viewpoints and ideas.

Does anyone else on the list have any thoughts to add?

Victoria



At 11:05 AM 16/11/99 , Theresa Swinehart wrote:
>I agree. The GA list seems to have started moving in a better direction, and
>focusing. I think right now we can watch, and forumlate something that can
>be used when we receive the nomination procedure proposals if needed, or
>part of the 'acceptance of specific proposal' note.
>
>I do think though that we need to keep a careful eye on this. having a
>proposal put forward that suggests one candidate nominated and presented is
>in my view not an option. I don't care if it's one of several proposals, if
>needed, but I don't think something like that would be reflective of the GA,
>only those that have chosen to speak the loudest. (which brings me to
>another note I'm getting ready to write to the NC list...)
>
>
>Theresa
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From:	Victoria Carrington [mailto:vcarrington@shapirocohen.com]
>Sent:	Tuesday, November 16, 1999 9:31 AM
>To:	Dennis Jennings; Theresa Swinehart
>Cc:	council@dnso.org
>Subject:	RE: [council] FW: [ga] nomination procedures
>
>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.
>

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.