[ga] Re[2]: [idno] Elections for EXCOM, MC, PC

["William X. Walsh" <william@userfriendly.com>]

Hello Chris,

Wednesday, October 11, 2000, 2:51:08 PM, you wrote:
> My personal views are that the ExCom election could go ahead as planned,
> because I do not favour sudden out-of-the-blue modifications to processes,
> such as "[lack of] enough candidates". OTOH the difficulties are A) so far
> very few acceptances have been posted B) there are less candidates than
> seats available for the other two committees. As things stand the few fully
> constitutionally correct candidates will be elected by default and there
> will be no buffers. Once the election has been taken there are no
> constitutional provisions for new elections for a year. To have a very small
> mandated group in my own view is a very unhealthy situation. I am in favour
> of delaying the elections to try to obtain more participatory candidates,
> and I am persuaded that the ICANN situation (and the NC elections) have
> diverted energy and time away from the internal issues here.

I don't think so. I really think that the lack of candidates and
acceptances is a statement about the lack of interest in the IDNO, and
the lack of support the IDNO has amongst even those it claims as
members.  Only one nomination for a list chair, who was supported by 3
people, led to an automatic appointment.  Existing eligible
nominations for the committees mandated by the excessive and overly
bureaucratic IDNO charter do not even fill 1/3 of those positions, and
many of those are people unknown to the process, who will, if history
bears out, be non-active mostly silent participants.

Filling out a form for a free membership, even joining a mailing list,
are simple things to do, and people who are only marginally interested
in the issues will do even that.

Plus, the way the last elected Steering Committee was treated when it
did nothing but act in a way that a non-steering committe member who
happened to be the founder and the controller of the website, polling
booth, and membership lists, did not agree with (which led to his
sabotage of their efforts, intentional delaying of their efforts to
make them a lame duck SC, etc), has had a serious impact on some
people's willingness to participate and volunteer in this effort.

The fact is that the IDNO as it stands does not have enough people
willing to actively support and work within it to meet even its most
minimal needs, and that alone illustrates that the entire concept of
the IDNO and its structure and management needs to be examined,
revamped, and totally changed.

I've CC'd this to the GA list and the domain policy lists, because the
issues of the IDNO and its history and lack of participation and its
inability to be representative of the people it wants to claim to be a
constituency of have been widely discussed there and this should
provide some broaded insights into these issues.

-- 
Best regards,
 William                            mailto:william@userfriendly.com


--
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