[ga] nomination procedures

[Mark Perkins <MarkP@spc.org.nc>]

No
They do not have to accept our first choice, they can bounce a single (or
multiple) nomination back. GA can then select another single candidate if it
wishes. This is in fact how several organisations function.

As for the NC by-passing this process and setting up another procedure,
would they not have to amend the rules effectively removing any democractic
role for GA (in effect abolising it)?

Mark Perkins
Librarian (acting)
Secretariat of the Pacific Community Library
BP D5, 98848 Noumea Cedex
New Caledonia, South Pacific
Tel: 00 687 262000  Fax: 00 687 263818
email: markp@spc.org.nc / web: http://www.spc.org.nc


-----Original Message-----
From: John C Klensin [mailto:klensin@mci.net]
Sent: 16 November 1999 06:16
To: Jonathan Weinberg
Cc: ga@dnso.org
Subject: Re: [ga] nomination procedures


Jonathan,

This isn't going to make me very popular, but...

(i) I think we need to ask the NC --whether formally or
informally-- to tell us the minimum number of nominees they will
accept.  Whatever sympathies one does or does not feel for the
"they are pushing us around and we need to trap them" school of
thought, the reality is that the GA _cannot_ trap the NC.
Depending on how the ICANN rules are read, they might plausibly
respond to a single nomination by bouncing it back for more or
even by deciding that, if the GA doesn't want to live up to its
responsibility to present multiple people, they will just
conduct a nomination and election process of their own,  Or, I
suppose we could try to make a very specific proposal to them
and see if they would agree to it.   One way or the other, I
think this needs to be "proposed procedure and agreement first,
selection later" or we are due for another version of the walk
in the weeds that seems to have become a DNSO habit.

(ii) I am really depressed about the state of the GA relative to
S/N ratio on the list, behavior of some bad actors, silence of
the majority, etc.  Perhaps no one else shares that view/
feeling.  But, if it is generally held, I'd suggest that any
"voting" procedure will be questionable and strongly questioned
by someone, just because of the noise and difficulties in
determining the voting population amidst allegations that some
people are actually electronic surrogates/ disguses for others
and questions as to whether the behavior of some (whether NC
members or list members who have been so offended by others to
become offensive themselves) are sufficiently close to felonous
behavior (as the GA might define such a thing) to forfeit the
right to vote.

So I would suggest that we return to a (somewhat more clear)
variation of the theme used to nominate people for consideration
for the board, i.e., a nomination and some minimum threshold of
endorsers, rather than an election.  It is obviously important
that we be clear about the rules and conventions this time,
e.g., who can nominate or endorse and whether any special value
is to be attributed to extra endorsers.   But, since I can't
read the current procedures as requiring the NC to accept the
GA's first choice, even if such a choice could be clearly
determined, I don't see a lot of point in trying to cut things
more finely than that.

       john

-----------

--On Monday, 15 November, 1999 13:15 -0500 Jonathan Weinberg
<weinberg@mail.msen.com> wrote:

> 	 The NC has asked for nomination procedures for the GA chair
> 	 election by Friday; it's in our interest actually to supply
> some.  As an initial matter, I see two proposals on the table
> as to how the GA might nominate X (a natural number greater
> than one) candidates for the position of GA chair:
> 
> [1] Each GA member casts X votes (that is, one vote for each
> of X candidates) with preferential weighting (Roberto's
> proposal) [2] Each GA member can vote for as many candidiates
> as he chooses (my proposal -- it's the system we used to
> "vote" for the DNSO's ICANN Bd members).