RE: Consensus vs Voting (RE: [ga] DNSO General Assembly call to change seating rule)

[Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

This message is being resent because there seems to be a disconnect going
on. The last I heard, the context was the GA and this is certainly the GA
mailing list. I was talking about the GA, or am I moving too fast for y'all?

The "we" in item 1 is the GA. However, I may have confused some of you with
my reference to the general NC body. It is opening yet another can of worms
when we discuss formation and instantiation of the various constituencies.
They were created by fiat, by the ICANN BoD. They were captured by the
power-clique and I don't consider their NC representitives fairly elected.
That is my opinion, one that cannot be changed without proof, that various
constituencies are not willing/able to provide. It certainly isn't available
to any GA member. 

In addition, it is certainly telling that the constituencies serve on an
at-will basis. Ergo, they are 100% at the behest of the ICANN BoD. If they
don't do what the BoD asks, or they cause too much upheaval, then the BoD
can dissolve that constituency. Hence my statement that the NC is an
appointed body.

Lacking a constituency for individual domain name owners and small
businesses, the GA is forced to assume that role. Yet, it is not allowed to
select its own NC rep. Jonathan may be a fine individual, but he really
should step down in favour of the real GA choice, Jamie Love, whom garnered
almost twice as many votes.

No, the NC is not an elected body, it is appointed, or near enough so as to
not make much/any difference.



---

1) We don't elect NC members, that much is obvious. We tried and we failed.
The ICANN BoD appointed whomever they want, regardless of the wishes of the
GA. That record is clear.

2) There is no impeachement mechanism that works. If there is, show it to
me.

3) The NC is an appointed body, not an elected one. The ICANN BoD is the
sole appointer. GA NC elections are meaningless.

Kent, you knew all of the above when you posted. You lie. However, this is
the most egregious lie that I have ever seen you make. You are usually not
this obvious. Are you feeling well? Or, perhaps you are feeling too well.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kent Crispin [mailto:kent@songbird.com]
> Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2000 9:20 AM
> To: ga@dnso.org
> Subject: Re: Consensus vs Voting (RE: [ga] DNSO General 
> Assembly call to
> change seating rule)
> 
> 
> On Sat, Nov 11, 2000 at 10:51:13PM +0800, YJ Park wrote:
> > 
> > Who is going to paly a check and balance role for NC?
> 
> The checks and balances on the NC are the standard checks and 
> balances on 
> *any* elected body -- if you don't like what your representatives do, 
> you don't re-elect them, or, in the worst case, you impeach them.  
> That's perfectly normal; there isn't any particular mystery about the 
> NC in this regard.
> 
> -- 
> Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
> kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 
--
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