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

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Mon, Sep 25, 2000 at 10:13:55PM +0200, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
[...]
> But we are not talking about direct elections by AtLarge, we are talking
> about the best way to meaningfully propose a set of candidates for the 
> NC to elect.
> Again, nobody is claiming (correction: I am not claiming) that the GA 
> should elect the DNSO ICANN Director, only that in providing the 
> nominees there should be "added value", or the process is useless (and 
> therefore should be abolished, as every useless thing).

The "added value" I see is simply that a group of reasonable candidates
were proposed.  That is, the requirements of the task were met.  What
additional added value do you want? 

The DNSO has to have SOME process to propose a slate of candidates. 
Another approach would be to have a nominating committee -- indeed, that
might be better.  But the IETF nomcom process has gone through multiple
iterations -- there is a debate about it on the poised list that is 
just winding down, in fact.

> >    2) the purpose of the DNSO is to give constituencies a voice
> 
> And what about those who do not belong to any constituency (like myself,
>  for instance)? Should they be banned from the DNSO?

You don't look like you are banned... :-)

> I think that the DNSO is to give a voice to all those who are interested
>  in Domain Name issues. Those who are lucky enough to belong to a 
> recognized constituency can also have a *vote*, which is a different 
> thing. Please let us have at least the voice, if not the vote. 

You obviously have a voice -- this letter is proof of that.

[...]

> Nobody is preventing the NC to propose candidates.
> I am just saying that the current limit of 10 endorsement is ridiculous.
> Everybody can have 10 friends subscribing to the GA and endorsing him/
> her, 

How, then, do you explain the withdrawal of Ms Keogh?  

The fact is that the endorsements do serve a useful function: they 
convey information about the reputation of the endorsee within this
context.  A bunch of glowing endorsements from unknown people doesn't 
carry the same weight as endorsements from people that you know.

> so the slate cannot be guaranteed to be reasonable.

There is no need to guarantee that the slate be reasonable.  The only 
real need is that the process generate at least one reasonable 
candidate.  

Kent

-- 
Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
--
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