[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ga] We "decided" to defer the election of our ICANN board seats
Dear Mark, and all,
it seems we go back to June or sometime around then. The GA is made up of
all those who belong in the DNSO and not in the constituencies as well
as those who do belong to constituencies. It is not meant and should not
be conceived as a "can of worms" made up of "dispossessed non-constituency
members". To use GA membership as a form of exclusion reverts against the
best spirit of the GA and surely takes the "G" out of the name.
The GA is being given an all-important function in the nomination of
candidates to be members of the ICANN Board and should not squander its
time and energy in fulfilling Randy Bush's certain prophesy of a renewed
round of bickering.
In the GA, as Mark says, people who do not belong to a constituency have a
voice, and we all have a vote. This vote is not going to be "filtered
upwards" through the constituencies. The best way we have to tell the NC
to do what we want is to provide it with a good list of strong, reputable,
knowledgeable and trustworthy candidates.
Alejandro Pisanty
On Fri, 17 Sep 1999, Mark C. Langston wrote:
>
> 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
>
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Dr. Alejandro Pisanty,
Director General de Servicios de Computo Academico
(Director, Computing Academic Services)
Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico (UNAM)
Ciudad Universitaria, 04510 Mexico City DF MEXICO
Tel. (+52-5) 622-8541, 622-8542; Fax 622-8540
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .