RE: New motion (was Re: [ga] nomination procedures)

[R.Gaetano@iaea.org]

Hi.
There must be a misunderstanding here.

idno@tallship.net wrote:
> <snip> .... I show the current support of the Single 
> Candidate Proposal so
> far to be Seven (7) individuals.
> 
> Specifically:
> 
>         1.)     Andy Gardner
>         2.)     Christopher Ambler
>         3.)     Myself (Bradley D. Thornton)
>         4.)     Roeland Myers
>         5.)     Mark Langston
> 	6.)	R. Gaetano
> 	7.)	Mark Perkins	
> 

Please delete me from your list.
I never said I supported the single candidate, I even proposed to have a
weighted vote that would have given, as outcome, three candidates.

I strongly believe, and I think I said that clearly (but I apologize if it
was not clear enough) that the proposal of a single candidate or whatever
other proposal that will put the GA in direct confrontation with the NC is
going to be the end of the GA.
In order for us to have the chance to count something in the process we need
to have the courage and the patience of making one step at the time, and not
to be playing the "all or nothing" game (unless what we really want is
"nothing", which can make us revert to our favourite sport, *complaining*).

As for myself, my favourite strategy is to have a reasonably good process
endorsed by the NC, and to proceed to the election of a GA chair. I will be
happy even if the chair will not be my first choice: I think that there are
many candidates that I can live with.
Once we have a chair, the GA will have more power, and can really play a
role.
If we don't achieve this, we give the possibility to the part of the NC that
hate to see their power limited by a GA to win over the other part that is
open to dialog and debate (yes, the NC is not monolithic as some paint it).

Last comment, about this play on motions on the floor.
To the best of my understanding (please correct me if I am wrong), the GA
has no chair currently, as Nii has been appointed just for the physical
meeting. As he may be a good candidate (he is well accepted by the GA, as
the 60 nominations for ICANN BoD show, and acceptable - I think - to the
NC), he should not interfere in the process now, in particular by calling to
vote motions when he does not have the (formal) authority to do so.

Regards
Roberto