[ga] Right of the GA to elect Chair

[James Love <james.love@cptech.org>]

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Right of the GA to elect Chair
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 15:07:35 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <jo-uk@rcn.com>
To: jcohen@shapirocohen.com
CC: danny younger <dannyyounger@cs.com>, 'James Love' <james.love@cptech.org>

Jonathan and Jamie,
The Right of the GA to elect its own Chair received widespread community
support more than a year ago as part of the DNSO's Review Process. I point
you to the record of the NC's WG-Review Group, which established around
February 2001, by way of a Vote on a suitable Motion, prepared by Greg
Burton, the Chair of that Working Group.

This Vote came about not from some extraordinary clairvoyance of WG-Review
Members that a Blueprint for Reform was about to abolish the concept some 18
months later, but in response to current procedures which, as you know, make
the NC the responsible for confirming the appointment of Officers of the GA.
I believe the Bylaws state:-

 > > (e) Officers of the GA shall include a chair, a co-chair, and an
ombudsman.
 > > Officers of the GA shall be elected annually according to the voting
 > > procedures adopted by the GA and approved by the NC.


Notwithstanding that I have never seen an "ombudsman" used as part of any GA
procedures, unequivocally, the GA has been fighting for the right to remove
the "adult supervision" of the NC over its own Chair selection for a
considerable period of time, and it is only the NC's unwillingness to
cooperate with community consensus that does not fit its narrow, special
interest group agenda that has prevented this coming to pass already. As a
DNSO Elected Director, I would have thought you knew all this already, so
how come you are now insisting the GA restates its position, or that it is
appropriate for you to ignore previously stated position, or even translate
community consensus as now being the opposite of what we know to be true?


Added to this, I fail to understand how the Board can justify the existence
of a bottom up consensus development process if it is intent on denying the
GA's expressed will at every turn.

If you need the URL of the Motion Results, I can dig them out, but believe
these are included in the WG-Review Report prepared by YJ Park and
incorporated into the NC's Final Review Report forwarded to the Board. In
short, the Board has already been told how the GA feels about this matter
and it is not necessary to keep asking it the same questions over and over
again. It only creates the impression that the Board will not accept any
answers that do not fit with its preconceived agenda.

Thank you for your time in consideration of this matter.

Regards,
Joanna

Jamie: Feel free to forward to GA List where I'm currently unsubscribed if
you see fit.




-- 
------
James Love, Consumer Project on Technology
http://www.cptech.org, mailto:love@cptech.org
voice: 1.202.387.8030; mobile 1.202.361.3040


--
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