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

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Tue, Nov 16, 1999 at 12:51:02AM -0800, Mark C. Langston wrote:
> And yes, the "single candidate" approach is forcing the issue.  I, for one,
> would rather have "nothing" than to proceed with a sham of a GA that exists
> only to give the appearance of weight and support to actions wholly
> decided upon by the NC. Either the GA will be a legimate body, or it
> will, and should, disappear.  If the NC want to disband the GA over this,

The NC won't disband the GA over this -- only the ICANN Board has the
power to disband the GA.  

Thanks for clarifying your position: If I may paraphrase into direct
terms, if you don't get what you want, you would like to see things
destroyed.

Fact: 
The bylaws say that the GA shall nominate BoD candidates, and 
the GA chair.  The bylaws also state that, in the case of the BoD 
candidates, the NC has the ultimate responsibility for determining 
the nomination process.

Fact:
The bylaws charge the NC with "managing the consensus processes" of
the DNSO.  Generally speaking, "managing" includes "being responsible
for process". 

Fact:
The obvious intent of the bylaws is that the GA come up with a pool 
of candidates for the NC to vote on.

Fact: 
The GA has no formal decision process.

-- 
Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain