Re: [ga] Re: [announce] Jonathan Cohen elected for 3 years term at the ICANN Board

["Roberto Gaetano" <roberto.gaetano@voila.fr>]

Kent Crispin wrote:
>> >
>> >This would likely be the case no matter what.  I do not forsee any
>> >likely future where the various constituencies, current or imagined,
 
>> are
>> >going to magically agree -- any election will be carried by a simple

>> >majority of the constituencies, with the angry losers growling and 
>> >snapping afterwards.
>> 
>> That's exactly the point.
>
>But I think you missed my point.  If the GA were a constituency, the 
>situation would be exactly the same.

Indeed.
But the fact is that the GA is not a Constituency: it has a different 
role.

>
>> The result of the election is determined by the simple majority of 
the 
>> Constituencies. The function of the GA is non-existent, as the 
>> collection of a nomination and 10 endorsements can easily be done by 
the
>>  NC reps of said "simple majority of the Constituencies".
>
>You will recall that the original model, discussed in Barcelona and in
>Monterrey, was that of an "at-large" *constituency*.  You may also
>recall that the notion of a "GA" came from the ccTLDs, as presented by
>Dennis Jennings.  In that notion, the "general assembly of the DNSO" 
was
>expected to be like the IETF, an informal general collection of people
>who participated in the more structured parts of the DNSO.  It was
>explicitly not supposed to be thought of as having any representative 
or
>governing role at all.  And what we got was what the ccTLDs wanted.

OK.
If people buy in the fact that the GA shall not have any representative 
or governing role, then the nomination/endorsement of the DNSO-elected 
ICANN Director does not make sense. Let's remove it. Let's say 
"everything is done at the NC level" and we may find that we don't need 
a GA at all.
What I object is the fact of having a GA that is only window dressing.
Either it has a function, and let's put it in condition to function, or 
it does not have a function, and then let's abolish it.

>
>Once again, I must remind people that while the IP interests get all 
the
>attention, it is fact the registries and registrars that are the most
>adamant special interest groups in the DNSO.  This is completely
>understandable -- they are the ones that have *direct* legal ties to
>ICANN. 

I lost you.
How does this relate to the role of the GA in the election?

>
>> My point is that the GA should have a meaningful role (for instance 
to 
>> determine who are the first (n) nominees to be forwarded to NC).
>> Otherwise, we may eliminate the joke/farce of the endorsement 
>> altogether.
>
>I'm sorry it doesn't meet your expectations, but it was never intended
>to.  The idea of the "endorsements" was simply to get a slate of
>candidates that the NC could choose from; the only numeric rule was 
that
>it be over some threshold.  This is not a perfect rule, but something
>like it is clearly necessary -- it takes only a casual look at the
>actual endorsements received to reveal that there are a lot of people
>making endorsements whose *only* participation in the GA was to 
suddenly
>turn up and endorse someone.  To put it bluntly, if the endorsements
>were votes, we would have experienced a significant amount of ballot
>stuffing.  [Note, however, that behavior that would not be acceptable 
for 
>voting might be acceptable for endorsements, IF the people are clear 
>that endorsements are just advisory.]
>
>Moreover, while Jonathan Cohen did receive several endorsements from NC
 
>members, he was well over the threshold if you throw all those 
>endorsements out.

So what?
You reason as if I was unhappy about the election of Jon Cohen.
I am unhappy about the process, and specifically the role of the GA in 
the process.
If the output of the "endorsement phase" is (n) candidates to NC, and 
Jon, Peter, Jamie, or whoever else is one of the (n), what happens next 
is not GA business.
But the output of the process will be a Director that can claim:
- support of the majority of the NC
- a certain level of "popularity".
Again, if the second is not needed, lets take it away!
But the threshold of 10 endorsements, when in any case the candidate 
needs more or less the same number of NC votes to be elected, is a farce
, I keep the point.

>
>>   Pity that more people can't emulate Peter de 
>> >Blanc's elegant and constructive "thank you" message.
>> 
>> If you are addressing this remark at me, there is a misunderstanding.
 I 
>> have no problem at all with the person that has been elected (I 
thought 
>> I made it clear, but apparently not enough), I have a problem with 
the 
>> "process". And this is the same problem I had last year (please refer
 to
>>  the archives). Obviously, I would have had the same problem if a 
>> different person would have been elected, Peter, or Jamie, or anybody
 
>> else.
>
>Do you think that the DNSO board members should be elected by a popular

>election? But that would be just like the AtLarge directors, wouldn't
>it? Isn't that why there ARE atlarge directors?

Did you read what I wrote? Can you please point out where I said that 
DNSO Board Members should be *elected* by a popular election?
I do not question at all that they have to be *elected* by the NC. I 
question the *nomination*.

Again (for the last time): shall the GA have a role or not?
If yes, let's do it in a meaningful way.
If not, let's abolish it.

Regards
Roberto
--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html