RE: [ga] FW from ncdnhc: GA Chair proposal from Names Council

[R.Gaetano@iaea.org]

Jonathan,

You wrote:
> 
> 	I propose that we use the same mechanism for putting 
> forward names, and
> demonstrating support, that we used in nominating individuals as DNSO
> selections for the ICANN Board.  That approach, it seemed to 
> me, worked
> pretty well in getting names out there and providing the 
> opportunity to
> gauge popular support.  The more difficult question is how 
> many names we
> should forward to the NC.  Jonathan Miller recommended that 
> we forward the
> top five vote-getters; myself, I'd suggest forwarding the top three.
> (Somebody suggested that we forward only one name.  It seems 
> to me that
> this is a nonstarter; the NC would reject it as inconsistent 
> with their
> responsibility under the bylaws to "elect the Chairman of the GA.")
> 

I totally agree on the "one name" to be a non-starter.

About the exact number of names to forward, I think that this is related to
the number of votes each person has.
In fact, one thing that we should improve in relationship with the
nomination process of the BoD candidates is to specify *in advance* how many
votes a "member" has (and of course who the "members" are).
Oh, yes, and also if there is a constraint in the distribution (for
instance, geographical).

My approach is:

1. "Nominators"
The "nominators" are the individuals subscribed to the GA list at the date
of opening of the nomination period (26th of November 1999, time-of-day
TBD).
I am assuming that a picture of the GA list can be taken by DNSO-Listadmin
at the chosen date/time, for future reference and verification of the
elegibility of the nominators (and nominees - see below).

2. Nominees
The nominee has to be a member of the GA (at date/time above). It will be
odd if the GA would elect a Chairman from outside.
I would also assume that whoever is accepting to run for Chairman should
resign from NC or ICANN BoD, if applicable.
(furthermore, I would add that the incumbent should not be an officer of
other Supporting Organizations either, in a sense to be better precised, the
rationale for this being that we don't want to cumulate power in one's hand
from different SOs)

3. Preferences
Each "nominator" can express 3 preferences, in a definite order.
The first preference counts 3 points, the second 2, the third 1.
Preferences have to be geographically distributed, i.e. not more than one
person per geographical region.
The problem I see is that if a nominee renounces, the nominator loses
his/her vote (but this is not related to the "weighted preference", but is
inherent in the system that allows only a limited number of votes to be cast
per nominator).
For this reason I propose that we start already nominating informally
candidates, so that we can ideally arrive to the opening date with a list of
people that intend to run for the office.

4. Results
The 3 nominees totalizing the highest number of "points" will be proposed to
the Name Council as the GA candidates.
No geographical distribution criterion is applied (in other words, the three
names transmitted to the NC can come from the same region).

Last but not least, about censorship, .....
(just kidding ;>))

Regards
Roberto