[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ga] nomination procedures
On Tue, Nov 16, 1999 at 02:47:32PM +1100, Mark Perkins wrote:
> Kent
>
> Can you please list them - would be useful
As it turns out there are many more than 4, with various kinds of
overlap. After reading them all over, I am of the opinion that John
Klensin's final comments proposing to follow the BoD procedures are
exactly to the point, so I would like to concretize his proposal as
follows:
The GA will select five nominated names and forward those 5 names
to the NC. The list of five names will include the following:
1) Levels of support will be shown by a list of 10 names of GA
members in support of the nominee. We use the same definition of
"GA member" that was used for the BoD nomination: Any member of
the ga, ga-announce, WG lists, and Constituency lists.
2) To assure that the NC can make an educated evaluation of
candidates, each nominee must provide a short background, and
statement of purpose and objectives the nominee has in the role as
Chair of the GA. This should include: what the nominee can and
will do for the GA and its role in the DNSO; how they intend to
interact with the NC and the 7 constituencies within the DNSO and
the GA; and anything else the nominee considers important.
John's proposal is essentially a continuation of the status quo; and
there is no mechanism to select between new proposals. At some
future time we may have such a mechanism, but we don't now, and we
aren't likely to get anything close to agreement on anything new in
the time frame available to us.
--------------------------------
Here is the list of proposals -- 8 by my count. Some overlap and
retraction, but it's hard know for sure...
1. Idno:
WE NOMINATE A SINGLE CANDIDATE FOR THE NC TO CHOOSE FROM
2. Jonathan Miller:
potential candidates post and a list of credentials
We then need to develop a procedure by which the GA
can vote on perspective candidates and elect nominees. I submit
that there needs to be an impartial collection of votes to insure
the integrity of this process. Further, I suggest that the top
five nominees from the GA be submitted to the Names Council for
consideration.
3. Jonathan Weinberg:
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.
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.
4. Roberto Gaetano:
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).
2. Nominees
The nominee has to be a member of the GA (at date/time above).
whoever is accepting to run for Chairman should resign from NC or
ICANN BoD, if applicable and should not be an officer of other
Supporting Organizations
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. if a nominee renounces,
the nominator loses his/her vote. I propose that we start already
nominating informally candidates
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).
5. Andy Gardner:
I hereby move that the person who received the greatest support
from the DNSO during the GA board membership nominations be the
sole DNSO nominee for the GA chair position.
6. Jonathan Weinberg:
[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).
7. Javier Rodriguez:
1) All the list members on the GA and Announcement list are able to
give 3 votes.
2) The will put the name of the 3 people in order. The first one
will get 3 points, the 2nd one will get 2 points and the third one
will get 1 point.
3) It is possible to vote just for 2 people, the first one with 3
points, and the 2nd one with one point. In the same fashion is
possible to vote just for one person who will get 3 points.
4) All the members in the GA and Announcement lists who are
subscribed before Nov. 19 are able to vote.
5) The 10 most voted candidates will go for a second round in the
same fashion: 3,2,1 points for the first, second, and 3rd name that
each person write in his/her mail.
5) From this 10 list, the 2 most voted pre-candidates will be
presented to the NC so this body can choose wich one they feel
would be a Chairman who will have strong support from the members
of the GA (Understanding the GA as the members of both lists: GA
and Annoucements).
8. John Klensin:
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.
--
Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be
kent@songbird.com lonesome." -- Mark Twain