[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [ga] nomination procedures
I'd like to suggest a refinement that applies equally to any procedure.
Whatever system is used should build in time for candidates to make some
sort of statement about their general views. We should construct a
system that encourages some sort of discussion between candidates and the
electorate as well, so that issues are ventilated rather than have the
election be one of personality.
On Tue, 16 Nov 1999 R.Gaetano@iaea.org wrote:
> Kent Crispin wrote:
> >
> > The GA will select five nominated names and forward those 5 names
> > to the NC. The list of five names will include the following:
> >
>
> Do I understand correctly that you propose that the GA members nominate
> candidates, and then select (with a vote, I assume) 5 candidates to forward
> to the NC from the set of nominees that have at least 10 statements of
> support?
>
> > 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.
> >
>
> I strongly disagree on that.
> This is the election of the GA chair, I don't see why we should include the
> constituencies and/or the working groups.
> Moreover, we have already seen the mess generated by the fact that multiple
> lists are used as a basis for the electorate. Why should we repeat the same
> mistake?
>
>
> > 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.
> >
>
> I would not be so pessimistic.
> I think that some of the proposals are technically different, but not
> different in the spirit. Some grouping may be possible.
>
> For instance, I don't think that it will be impossible to merge:
>
> 2. Jonathan Miller:
> 3. Jonathan Weinberg:
> 4. Roberto Gaetano:
> 7. Javier Rodriguez:
> 8. John Klensin:
>
> They all aim at having the GA coming up (with a more or less sophisticated
> mechanism) with a set of 3 to 5 names to propose to NC.
>
> Also, 6. Jonathan Weinberg is not an independent proposal, it restates 3.
> and 4. above.
>
> Regards
> Roberto
>
> >
> > --------------------------------
> >
> > 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
> >
>
--
A. Michael Froomkin | Professor of Law | froomkin@law.tm
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285 | +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) | http://www.law.tm
-->It's warm here.<--