Re: [ga] We "decided" to defer the election of our ICANN board seats

["Mark C. Langston" <skritch@home.com>]

On 17 September 1999, "Alejandro Pisanty, DGSCA y FQ, UNAM" <apisan@servidor.unam.mx> wrote:
>
>Does anybody have specific proposals of a few key questions that should be
>addressed by nominees? They should, IMO, cover the interests and more
>importantly the *principles* of their own constituency, relevance of
                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>technical background and proven record in public organizations (whence we
>can deduct something about honesty, consistency, availability for the
>task, etc.), and a view of the future for ICANN's work.


Have we so soon forgotten that one of the REASONS for the GA is to allow
people who AREN'T members of constituencies to have a voice?

Please, people.  Let's try to proceed with an eye towards fairness.
Rush this, and it'll end up botched.  There is no need for a rush,
other than the timetable that the NC has seen fit to impose on us.

We're a seperate body, a seperate entity from the NC, and we do NOT have
to adhere to their demands.  Quite the contrary, they should act at
OUR behest.  They are there to serve as elected representatives of
those qualified to be members of constituencies, and to act on the
will of the majority of the DNSO membership.  That is the GA.

-- 
Mark C. Langston	LATEST: ICANN refuses	Let your voice be heard:
mark@bitshift.org  to consider application for       http://www.idno.org
Systems Admin    Constituency status from organized http://www.icann.org
San Jose, CA      individual domain name owners      http://www.dnso.org