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

[Bob Davis <bob.davis@netzero.net>]

Harald and all DNSO'ers,

  Of course the NC are constituency members.  And this is really
a part of the structure problem of the DNSO itself which our
spokesman and we [INEGRoup] as a body considered
not feasible and to an extent not legitimate, as constituencies
should be independent of the ICANN and the DNSO itself.
I believe the term Jeff used was "Divisive".   And so it has come
to pass...  So, the "Divisiveness continues"!!!

Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:

> At 09:38 06.12.99 -0800, Mark C. Langston wrote:
>
> >Two things started bothering me this morning regarding the current
> >GA Chair elections:
> >
> >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).
>
> Allowed to nominate; this is not a vote.
> Aren't the NC members also constituency members?
> Anyway, they didn't.
>
> >   Elizabeth Porteneuve, the person responsible for the voting rules and
> >    the Secretariat for the DNSO, has officially voiced support for a
> >    candidate, as has Ken Stubbs, one of the Registrars NC members.
> >
> >    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.
>
> I don't see how their stating their opinion in public affects our decision,
> since we don't make a decision. It might influence our opinion polls, but
> those are not votes.
>
> >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 choice in the matter, is now content to sit back and let the
> >    process continue as long as their "choice" is a candidate for which
> >   their own members have voiced support.
>
> At one point (my interpretation), it looked as if there could be either no
> candidate or a candidate that would have no real support either in the GA
> or the NC.
> This outcome would clearly have been unacceptable to us all.
> I'm happy that the current situation allows the NC to follow the procedure
> that was published without causing a panic in tne NC or the GA.
>
> I'd certainly be less than happy if the NC stated a procedure and then
> changed it because they did not like its result.
>
> >Am I alleging misconduct?  No;  at least, not as such.  But I must
> >say that I find this improper.
>
> I don't see a cause for alarm.
> That doesn't mean there isn't one, just that I haven't seen any yet.
>
>                Harald A
>
> --
> Harald Tveit Alvestrand, EDB Maxware, Norway
> Harald.Alvestrand@edb.maxware.no

Bob Davis...

__________________________________________
NetZero - Defenders of the Free World
Get your FREE Internet Access and Email at
http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html