Re: [ga] Call for focus.....

[Greg Burton <sidna@feedwriter.com>]

At 06:14 AM 2/9/01, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
>Greg Burton wrote:
>>
>>Ok - it looks to me like we'd need to start on the 6th, if we allowed 10
>>days for nomination and acceptance, and 7 days for the poll. This would
>>close on the 23rd, then, and give the NC at least a couple of days to look
>>over what we've done.
>
>To me, a reasonable target would be to have ICANN dealing with the bylaws 
>change in relation to the GA Chairperson election in the Melbourne meeting.

Yes - but that doesn't mean the board will deal with them at that time. In 
the interim, I have the impression that the NC WILL approve whoever we 
elect - so let's do it. Better to have a chair in place, in case the BoD 
doesn't act immediately.

Aside from giving direction to the GA, the Chair will continue to serve on 
the review task force when it's re-constituted to recommend implementation 
strategies to the NC, so getting a new chair is crucial to representing GA 
interests in the NC process.

>I assume that in order to achieve this result we have to:
>- bring a motion forward to ICANN to have the matter discussed

We need to make the recommendation to the NC - I would suggest that posting 
comments to the task force review document making that recommendation would 
be productive, as well as passing the formal motion already made here.

>- come to an agreement with the NC (will the NC support the motion? will 
>the NC formally elect the most voted nominee?)

This is two parts. On part one, we don't know at this time, which is why 
proceeding with the nomination process we're already in is crucial to OUR 
credibility. On part two,  it was mentioned in the NC teleconference 
yesterday that they "think we're in the process of selecting someone". I 
suggest that we'd better stop fooling around and do it.

I'm a bit irritated that this has stalled by inaction to the point that by 
Harald's calculations, we already can't do it in time. I posted what we'd 
need to do on the 4th - it's already the 9th, before there was any reply. 
Since the NC seems willing to select whoever the GA wants, for us to fail 
in this means that responsibility for the lack of a GA chair falls squarely 
on the GA , not the NC.

<sarcasm>
This should do wonders for our credibility.
</sarcasm>

Regards,
Greg

sidna@feedwriter.com

--
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