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

[R.Gaetano@iaea.org]

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).
> 
>    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 have always insisted on the fact that the GA has to be considered the set
of participants to the GA-List + the subscribers to DNSO-announce, so I
agree on the spirit of your remark.

On the particular cases you make, though, I have to note that both examples
you make are of people that are subscribed to one, if not both, lists.

On the specific "Chicoine amendment", my personal question is: "How many
people in the NC are not only not participating in the GA-lists, but also
not in any WG, and even not in the mailing lists of the Constituency that
has elected him/her?".
It is, therefore, just a matter of principle, not a "real" case.

> 
> 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.
> 

My reading is different.

I think that what the NC was not ready to accept was the "imposition" of a
single or two candidates by the procedure itself.
The fact that we have at most three candidates that will be forwarded to the
NC for the final round is due only to the non-acceptance of the candidature
by the two persons that had the largest support in the BoD nomination
process, i.e. Karl and Nii, and not in an explicit move of the GA that
willingly limited the number of people.

The effect may look the same, but there is a huge political difference.

This said, my worry is a different one: the lack of participation so far
determines, if not a lack of legitimacy, at least a lack of credibility of
whoever candidate will be elected, and ultimately a lack of power that this
individual (and the GA) will have.

In a representative democracy, a representative has the weight of the people
he is representing and speaking for. It is a completely different thing, in
making a point in the political debate between the different actors
(Constituencies, NC, ICANN, whatever) for the GA to say: "I represent the
GA" and "I barely represent a dozen people out of few hundreds plus the
majority of the NC that has elected me for lack of better choice".

My question is: who will benefit of this situation, other than those who
never believed in the GA, were forced to swallow its existence, and are
looking for a good reason to undermine its authority further and to limit
its role?

> 
> Am I alleging misconduct?  No;  at least, not as such.  But I must 
> say that I find this improper.
> 

No need for risking to be accused of misconduct, just need to wait: by
continuing on this path the GA is not worthed the effort of a sabotage, it's
falling apart by itself.

Regards
Roberto