Re: [ga] Re: [announce] Jonathan Cohen elected for 3 years term at the ICANN Board

["Roberto Gaetano" <roberto.gaetano@voila.fr>]

Kent,

>> 
>> OK.
>> If people buy in the fact that the GA shall not have any 
representative 
>> or governing role, then the nomination/endorsement of the DNSO-
elected 
>> ICANN Director does not make sense. Let's remove it. Let's say 
>> "everything is done at the NC level" and we may find that we don't 
need 
>> a GA at all.
>
>It really strikes me that you, like so many others, appear to think 
that
>"representative or governing roles" are the only things that matter. 


I said exactly the contrary.
I bought your argument that the GA should not have "representative or 
governing roles". In an effort to rationalize, and eliminate useless 
things, I proposed to eliminate the endorsement of the candidates by the
 GA, and leave it completely to who has the "representative or governing
 roles", i.e. the NC.
Fair enough?


>For people trained as lawyers or political scientists or even
>economists, such a blunder is perhaps excusable.  But you are a
>technical person, so I am finding it hard to understand why you are 
>missing this...
>
>People go to IETF meetings primarily to participate in individual
>working groups; the plenary meetings (which might be the closest thing
>to a "GA of the IETF") don't have a significant representative or
>governing role in the matters of the IETF; most of the real work of the

>IETF takes place in the working groups, the IAB, the IESG, the
>nominating committee, and so on.  Occasionally rough polls are taken in

>the plenary meetings to guage the feelings of the IETF participants as 
a
>whole -- these are more opinion surveys than elections; Jon Postel gave

>a presentation of what the "new IANA" would look like at an IETF
>plenary; the IAHC gave a presentation at an IETF plenary etc etc.


Good.
So, who does the nominations in the IETF? The NomCom, or the plenary?
You see my point now?

>[...]
>> 
>> So what?
>> You reason as if I was unhappy about the election of Jon Cohen.
>> I am unhappy about the process, and specifically the role of the GA 
in 
>> the process.
>> If the output of the "endorsement phase" is (n) candidates to NC, and
 
>> Jon, Peter, Jamie, or whoever else is one of the (n), what happens 
next 
>> is not GA business.
>
>That's PRECISELY and EXPLICITLY what the output of the endorsement 
phase
>is supposed to be.  It is supposed to be a slate of nominees from which
 
>the NC will elect a director.


I keep my point. So organized, it is useless.
Anybody can get 10 endorsements.


>
>> But the output of the process will be a Director that can claim:
>> - support of the majority of the NC
>> - a certain level of "popularity".
>> Again, if the second is not needed, lets take it away!
>
>The second is your fantasy.


Well, then take it away, as I said!

Regards
Roberto
--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html