Re: [ga] Two things troubling me with the GA Chair elections...

[John C Klensin <klensin@mci.net>]

Mark,

(copy to watchdog group deleted; I _know_ they are all on the GA
list)

I'm not wild about a number of aspects of this either, starting
with one of the underlying themes of the discussion of the last
few weeks (random noise filtered out).   That theme is "GA as
interest group/ constituency of its own".   For better or worse,
the DSNO isn't designed that way.  As I've said in previous
notes, the combination of that design and having groups in the
GA who are clearly disenfranchised implies a problem that needs
to be fixed, either by some appropriate readjustment of the
constituency list or by deciding that the GA contains
unrepresented interests after all, and contains them to the
extent that the GA ought to be represented on the NC. Without
that fixed, we inevitably have a confusing situation on our
hands.  I think your note reflects some of the confusion.

Specifically, with regard to your two points...

--On Monday, December 06, 1999 09:38 -0800 "Mark C. Langston"
<skritch@home.com> wrote:

> 1)  The NC and officers of the DNSO are being allowed to vote
> -- something that Caroline Chicoine changed the voting
>    procedures to allow at the very last minute.
>    (http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc03/msg00173.html
>    ).
>...
>    While I do believe the NC members have a right to
>    participate in the GA, I find it improper that they be
>    allowed to influence a decision on which they have final
>    say.

This, of course, hinges critically on whether the GA is a
separate entity, with its own interests, etc., or whether it is
(as designed) just the union of the various groups and actors in
the DNSO.   If the former, you are probably correct: this would
be in bad taste, if not actually improper and, of course, the
whole notion of the NC picking the GA's leadership would be
strange indeed.  Of course, many others, assuming that the GA is
a separate body, a constituency onto itself, have made the
latter observation repeatedly.   If the latter, it would be
quite unreasonable to expect them, as participants in the DNSO
generally and the GA in particular, to not have opinions.  The
only question of propriety would arise if, by making statements
on the GA list (i.e., by expressing their opinions, not just
having them), they had a disproportionate influence on others.
That just isn't an issue here, since the GA isn't voting.  And
it would take quite a leap to believe that the NC membership was
more influenced by these people's opinions expressed on the GA
list than by their opinions expressed in NC-only conversations
(especially since it is still my impression that the majority of
the NC are not following the GA discussions on a real-time
basis).


> 2) Discussions among the NC made it clear that they would not
> be willing to accept a result in which only one or two
>    candidates were put forth for their selection.  Yet
>    clearly, this is what's about to happen. I find it
>    interesting that the NC, who feared we might give them no
>...

Well, from what I've heard about those discussions and what the
NC was willing to accept, the case they wanted to exclude
involved the GA's tentatively nominating some people, conducting
a selection process of its own, and then putting only the
"winner"* forward.   At least so far, that hasn't happened: we
got some nominations and acceptances according to the rules, the
endorsement process is now in motion, and all of the candidates
thus nominated by the GA are going to the NC, not some subset of
them selected by a putative GA election (with all of the
uncertainties about identities, etc., that implies).   Not an
entirely satisfactory situation in terms of the slate of
candidates, but not in violation of that preference/statement
either.

And, interestingly, from those of the nominees I know personally
and extrapolation from postings on the GA list and elsewhere, it
appears to me that you, Harald, and Roberto represent three
different perspectives on the GA, its role, and the role of its
chair.   That gives the NC a much wider range of options than a
selection of several more people with views that are more
similar to each other, which I think is A Good Thing.

      john

* "Winner" is in quotes above because, while I really appreciate
the willingness of the three of you to do this and the spirit of
dedication and responsibility to the community it implies (just
as I appreciate Elizabeth's willingness to continue as
secretariat and list maintainer), the notion of someone actually
_wanting_ a position like this except out of a sense of public
service and obligation astounds me... and causes me to
appreciate your willingness all the more.