RE: [ga] Request to the GA Chair for a Ballot

["Joanna Lane" <jo-uk@rcn.com>]

Can somebody explain me where the problem is?
Roberto,
 I am not making myself clear to you and will try to make my points again in
simpler language.
You have URL reference to documents from my other posts and I oversimplify
my points in the interests of better understanding.

Roberto wrote:-
This is my POV.

1. We have 4 candidates that are all four eligible under our currently
adopted rules to be included in the ballot to be issued by the Secretariat
on 2001-03-31 (and this solves Joop's concern, as he expressed it below).

[Joanna] No. All four candidates are not eligible. Eric Dierker has no
endorsement. He will be stopped from the next round, as we agreed under 2001
rules. He would need two endorsements. If 1999 rules are to be applied by
the NC, (which I argue they not),  the NC has the power to end the election
today, after endorsement closes. Then, the NC may chose any candidate from
those who have 10+ endorsements. The Secretariat does not have to issue a
Ballot. This is the way Louis Touton wanted the election to be run, (see NC
Teleconference Minutes of Feb 26th). He is on record for the "rule of ten"
in this Election, but it was deleted by Elizabeth Portneuve when she drafted
the Election Rules for 2001 and posted them to the DNSO website. Obviously,
the GA cannot agree to take one old rule (the rule of ten) and leave out
another (voting to select candidate from endorsed nominees). Therefore, it
is either 2001 rules, or it is 1999 rules. It cannot be both. And if we do
nothing about it, next time, another old rule could be used to skew the
result. We cannot always be looking back.

2. The NC has *its* procedures, never changed AFAIK, that include the "rule
of ten" (as part of the 1999 rules): these are not GA rules, but NC rules,
and as correctly pointed out by Joanna, NC should change them (if they
wish), not us.

[joanna] They were replaced by the 2001 Election Rules, which the NC
approved. The only thing the NC did not approve was the Bylaws change. That
was to stay the same for this election. There is a typo in the NC
Teleconference minutes. Harald can explain. No, I disagree they are not NC
Rules. They are GA Rules, approved by the NC for use in the 1999 GA
Election. The NCwas *managing* the Election in 1999, but in 2001, the NC
made the decision to ask the GA to *manage* the election process, so the all
rules pertaining to GA Election are now GA responsibility to manage. The
situation has changed and what we have been doing is taking over management
functions of the NC. The 2001 rules were drafted by the GA, not by the NC.
Harald raised the problem that the NC may use the 1999 "Rule of ten". This
is a *management* problem which is now GA responsibility. For this reason,
we need a Resolution, and must dismiss the 1999 Rules from the process or
adopt them properly. (I guess nobody in the GA wants them except Louis
Touton). For the time being, we manage the transition through
recommendations to the NC, until such time as ICANN Bylaws are changed.
Change in Byelaws has to be agreed first with the NC. Management of the
Election process is already agreed by the NC.

3. The NC has expressed its willingness to ratify the choice of the GA,
therefore to appoint the candidate with more votes: it may do so even if the
candidate has not received 10+ endorsments in the endorsment phase (but it
may be source of embarassment).

[Joanna] There is NO evidence that the NC wants candidates with minimum
10+endorsements. No NC member has said this in 2001, not in NC
teleconference (except Louis Touton), not in LA in 1999, not in any document
at DNSO website, not in the GA ML, not in WG-Review. It is an imagination.
There is no embarrassment  in managing the election process properly
according to the 2001 rules, which is 2+ endorsements and a proper ballot of
the voting roster. The embarrassment is allowing an outdated rule from an
old Agreement to override the new rules half way through the election
because somebody has noticed a member of ICANN staff mentioned it at the NC
Teleconference. In my book, that is called mis-management. If the "rule of
ten" exists, we must now do some work to make sure this and nothing else
from 1999 rules interferes with due process. It is simple housekeeping.

I interpreted Harald's message in this way: please guarantee that every
candidate fulfills *also* the 1999 requirements, so that we can avoid
discussions, and we can avoid potential opposition by any individual member
of the NC, that may raise formal objections.
I may incidentally note that the number of bytes needed to flow in the Net
to provide the missing endorsement to the candidates that still did not pass
the 10 cap is substantially lower than the number of bytes flowing in this
argumentation.

[Joanna] Power is not given, it is taken, and that costs bytes, sorry.
If you want the NC to manage this election, we can save bytes...:-).

In any case, I believe that a motion of the GA on this subject is out of
order for the following reasons:
- it changes the rules of the election while the election is ongoing;
- the motion presented aims at putting to vote a subject that has been
discussed for not even 24 hours.

- No. It is the other way round. If you do not have the Motion, it changes
the rules. It amounts to the GA agreeing that the NC can manage the election
process using 1999 rules if they want. I disagree with that position.
- How long do you need to agree that the GA did not adopt 1999 rules for
it's 2001 election?

As I noted above, even if I accepted this motion, and the GA approved this
motion, this would only mean to be a recommandation to the NC, who could
still be free to accept it or to reject it.
In the meantime, rest assured that I will pass the official results of the
GA election process to the NC without application of the "rule of 10". We
will elect the candidate(s) according to our rules, and let's the NC take
its decision according to its rules.


- Please feel free to amend the wording as you see fit.
- Yes, the NC could reject it, but they have delegated responsibility for
management to the GA, so we are free to make management decisions as we see
fit.
- Yes, I agree you should not apply the "rule of 10". If you did, you would
not be following Election rules for 2001.

Thank you. I hope we understand each other better.
Joanna

>
>At 16:58 29/03/01 -0500, Joanna Lane wrote:
>
> >In conclusion,  I move that the so called "rule of ten" be dismissed by a
> >formal motion of the GA voting assembly, then the NC will have the
>guidance
> >they obviously need.
> >
>
>Seconded.
>There is nothing to stop us from proceeding with an election of all
>endorsed candidates.
>
>--Joop
>________________________________________________________
>
>Roberto and all remaining members,
>
>Whereas it is not a requirement of the GA that members of the voting roster
>must also subscribe to the GA mailing list.
>Whereas the standard procedure for determining the will of all those
>affected by election procedure is by Ballot of the Voting Roster prepared
>by
>the DNSO Secretariat.
>Whereas All candidates for GA Chair and Alternate Chair who have accepted
>the nomination, and had at least two endorsements from members of the
>voting
>roster of the General Assembly, are considered candidates, under rules
>approved by Ballot of the GA for the 2001 election.
>http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2001.GA-chair-election-rules-v0.2.html
>Whereas  the DNSO Chair and Alternate Chair Election Rules posted to the
>DNSO website on March 16th give a clear description of  the process used to
>select the nominee in accordance with the 2001 rules communicated to the
>GA.
>. http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2001.DNSO-GAchair.html
>Whereas at its 1999 meeting in LA the NC indicated that it would be guided
>by the GA in appointing a new GA Chair.
>Whereas a DECISION of NC taken in February 2001 to invite the GA to manage
>an election process to select a nominee for appointment by the NC to the
>position of Chair of the GA was unanimously approved by council members.
>Whereas on March 29, immediately prior to closure of the endorsement period
>of the 2001 election, the GA Alternate Chair announced to the GA ML that
>under NC rules adopted for the 1999 Election that none of the candidates
>have enough endorsements to be considered by the Names Council according to
>the rules of the NC selection, which rules increase the number of
>endorsements required by 8 (eight) and require the names of all candidates
>with 10 (ten) or more endorsements to be put forward for the NC to make the
>final selection for GA Chair and Alternate Chair, these being in opposition
>to 2001 rules.  http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc06/msg01473.html
>
>IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the General Assembly ( in their capacity as
>managers of the 2001 election process to select a nominee for appointment
>by
>the NC to the positions of Chair and Alternate Chair of the GA) to dismiss
>the Rules applied to the previous election in 1999.
>__________________________________________
>The above Resolution to be put to the voting roster by Ballot prepared by
>DNSO Secretariat, to run in tandem with the election process currently
>underway.
>
>BALLOT QUESTIONS
>
>1. The 1999 election rules should be dismissed by the NC
>2. The 1999 election rules should be adopted by the NC
>3. Abstain
>
>
>
>
>--
>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
>

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.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