Re: [ga] CURRENT STATUS OF NOMINATION PROPOSALS (fwd)

[<idno@tallship.net>]

Sorry Patrick,

I was doing the best I could in attempting to volunteer my time here to
the GA and my employer at the same time. Please forgive any oversight on
my part as last week was very hectic and hopefully you forwarded on your
proposal to the NC. 

I did notice that there were one or two that I did not mention as they
were also cc'd to the NC and I since I didn't notice anyone attaching
their name to those other than the authors considered it a moot point to
include them in the list at the last minute.

I must say that many of the so-called proposals left much to be desired as
far as their explicitness, but it is so obvious that we do need some form
of centralization here in the form of order that will facilitate process.

I'm not convinced that this is what the NC has in mind for us.

-Bradley-

On Fri, 19 Nov 1999, Patrick Greenwell wrote:

> On Fri, 19 Nov 1999 idno@tallship.net wrote:
> 
> > 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.
> 
> Actually, there was. I proposed that individual list members make their
> own personal nominations to the NC, given the lack of:
> 
>     a) A minimally verified membership in order to establish voting
>        rights and minimize fraud.
>     b) Consensus/Vote-based processes for conducting the normal business
>        of the GA 
>     c) An agreed-upon nomination process that b) would enable and make
>        credible.
> 
> While I appreciate the efforts of those proposing a single GA-wide
> nomination process, the lack of all of the above renders any move to
> offer one or more names or process as being representative of the
> wishes of the GA as an entity completely inappropriate and devoid
> of any validity IMO. It would seem much more preferrable and honest to
> simply offer individual nominations.
> 
> What would be most preferrable to me personally is for the GA to start
> with process before decision-making, and the amendment of the ICANN bylaws
> to allow the GA to elect their own chair, a right all other ICANN
> constituencies enjoy. 
> 
>  
> 
>