Re: [council] Emergency Reminder about the GA's Chair nomination procedures

["Joe Sims" <Joe_Sims@jonesday.com>]

_______________________________________________________________

This message and any attachments are intended for the individual or entity
named above.  If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read,
copy, use or disclose this communication to others; also please notify the
sender by replying to this message, and then delete it from your system.
Thank you.
_______________________________________________________________

With apologies in advance to those who think I should keep my opinions to
myself, and clearly labeling this as my personal opinion, I don't
understand how this suggestion necessarily captures the "high ground."  It
is the NC, not the GA, which is responsible for managing the DNSO process
in a way that acheives consensus if such is possible on a particular issue.
The GA has no independent role or existence under the ICANN bylaws, but is
simply one of the structures of the DNSO that the NC is free to use to the
extent the NC believes it appropriate to carry out its responsibilities.
Therefore, the logic follows, what the NC should do on this specific issue,
and all others, is whatever it believes will be most productive in carrying
out the tasks assigned to it by the ICANN bylaws.  This does not prescribe
any particular approach, but it does mean that the "high ground" is
whatever the NC believes is best suited to carrying out its
responsibilities to manage the consensus development process -- which may
or may not coincide with the majority or even the "consensus" of those
participating on the GA list.




KathrynKL@aol.com on 11/24/99 04:02:31 PM
Extension:

To:   Elisabeth.Porteneuve@cetp.ipsl.fr, council@dnso.org
cc:    (bcc: Joe Sims/JonesDay)
Subject:  Re: [council] Emergency Reminder about the GA's Chair nomination
      procedures




I have reviewed the proposals and see a number of similarities, etc.  I
think
they can mostly be reconciled.  My real concern here is that as a Names
Council, we decline invitation to step in and provide the authentication
and
pollwatching services ourselves.  In the long run, I think it will help the
GA and the DNSO more if we teach the GA to handle authentication and
pollwatching committees on its own --through the appointment of independent
neutrals.

In the proposals:  I do see a role for neutrals to review the names on the
GA
lists for redundancy/lives in being etc. (see proposal of
R.Gaetano@iaea.org).  I also think there is a role for a neutral
pollwatching
committee (see proposal of J.Weinberg which seems to expand on, but be
slightly different from the proposal of Roberto's).

But I would like to recommend that we don't take the easy way and appoint
ourselves -- members of the Names Council to this/these groups.  Let's see
if
we can find some neutrals -- perhaps leaders of other Supporting
Organizations -- to work with the GA on authentication/poll watching.  If
we
do, we will be viewed as the good guys who took the high ground.

Kathy Kleiman



> Please consider the 5 proposals received, and select the
>  nomination mecanism for the GA's Chair.
>  To be achieved in next 52 hours (we forgot Thanksgiving holiday,
>  I am really sorry and I appologize to the US collegues in the NC).
>
>  Elisabeth
>
>  | Selection of the nomination mechanism by the Names Council
>  | close November 26, 18:00 CET
>  |
>  | Archives of received proposals
>  | http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-procedures/Archives/maillist.html
>