[ga] CURRENT STATUS OF NOMINATION PROPOSALS (fwd)

[<idno@tallship.net>]

Here is a recap of the proposals and the support which they had received.
there were no new proposals yesterday or any added support for the
existing proposals yesterday.

Today, there have been some new proposals on the nomination process, but I
think that those people had forwarded their proposals directly to the NC,
with possibly one or two exceptions.

Other proposals today that were new dealt with mostly other similar issues
and if there were one or two additions to this list, I would suggest that
those authors forward them to the NC along with any garnered support from
anyone on this list that has expressed such support.

If there are no objections in the next thirty minutes or so, I will
forward a copy of the propsal list below to the appropriate address so
that they may be part of the considered methodologies.

time has run out for anything else, and yes, we were not given sufficient
time for this by the NC.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:48:07 -0800 (PST)
From: idno@crom.tallship.net
To: ga@dnso.org
Subject: CURRENT STATUS OF NOMINATION PROPOSALS

Okay, here's what I have so far. If anything isn't just the way you had
hoped please let me know becuase I'm trying to do the best I can with what
I've been given including time.

Don't get pissed if your name is in the wrong place, just let me know
where you think it belongs or if it belongs. For instance, a few of you
let me know where the errors were and asked to be somewhere else, and
everyone has been pretty supportive of this effort and polite. Please make
the mesages as short as you can to me, so I don't have to wade through
more than neccessary, and if you have a proposal, please don't just say,
"yeah, like that one only except I'd like to see..." (Mark Hooker, I can't
tell how you'd like to have your proposal worded - I'll list it, but It's
not my place to author it). make it very very clear that it is a proposal
and spell it out. I'm just going to add a number to it and cut and paste.
We should start thinking about how we're going to decide amongst these
proposals too. And once that happens, If we're going to add any
ammendments or refinements such as Prof Froomkin's proposed ammendment.

finally, because there were several misunderstanding's with regards to
which single candidate proposal You'll find that Dennis Schaefer is listed
under both, but please let me know if that is correct or just one Dennis.
Also, if your throwing support for an issue, Give the number and author if
possible to make it clear so I can get it right. I'm just trying to
perform a public service here. I'm no chair, and someone else here is
going to have to figure out how exactly, we are going to present the
proposal/proposals to the NC - Not me!

One final note: Thanks Kent for enumerating these and digging them all up. 

you've all been really helpful and understanding, and I'd like to thank
you for that.

-Bradley-

============================================
============================================
=====  Candidate Nomination Proposals  =====
============================================
============================================

Proposals for the methodology in the nomination of GA Chair candidates.
One or more to be presented to the NC for consideration by 19 Nov 1999.

The current list with accumulated level of support so far, a/o 21:30hrs
PDT (-0800 UTC)




1. Idno (Bradley D. Thornton): (6)

  WE NOMINATE A SINGLE CANDIDATE FOR THE NC TO CHOOSE FROM

	Support:
	Mark Langston
			Roeland Meyer
			Dennis Schaefer
			Mark Perkins
			David Jensen

2. Jonathan Miller: (1)

  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: (2)

	Support:
			Mark Perkins

  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: (2)

	Support:
			Mark Perkins

  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 #1: (4)

	Support:
			Chris Ambler - Seconded
			Bradley D. Thornton
			Dennis Schaefer

  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)

  [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: (5)

	Support:
			Kent Crispin
			Joop Teernstra - Seconded
			William X. Walsh
			Mark Perkins

  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: (1)

  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.

9. Andy Gardner #2: (2)

	Support:
			Chris Ambler - Seconded

  I hereby move:

"That the two people who received the greatest support from the DNSO
GA during the GA board membership nominations be put forward to the NC as
the two nominees chosen by the GA for the GA chair position."


FROOMKIN AMMENDMENT PROPOSAL: (4)

	Support: 
			Matt Hooker
			David Jensen
			Bradley D.Thornton


(Proposed by Michael Froomkin to be attached to any/each of the above
proposal in the event of acceptance)

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.


===================================================
===================================================

NOTE: It appears that there are two Weinberg Proposals, with one having
received support from Mat Hooker, therefore, since I do not know which one
of the two Mr. Weinberg wanted to withdraw, and also because I will not
withdraw a motion once it receives support without that support first
having been withdrawn, They will both remain until I receive further
clarification.

Sincerely,

Bradley D. Thornton
tallship@tallship.net