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

["Erica Roberts" <erica.roberts@bigpond.com>]

I will be raising the issue of the GA chair at the next meeting of the NC.
Given that the NC is responsible for the appointment of the GA chair, the
main issue is the procedural one of how the NC will select the Chair.  Given
the discussion at the LA meeting, I will be proposing that the NC invite the
GA to select its candidate for appointment to be ratified by the NC.   So
long as the GA election proc\ess ensures that the successful candidate has
broard support from the GA, I expect (speaking personally) that the
candidate proposed by the GA will be automatically ratified by the NC.

Meanwhile, I'd be gateful if someone could clarify for me the proposed
nomination and election process.

erica
----- Original Message -----
From: "Greg Burton" <sidna@feedwriter.com>
To: "Roberto Gaetano" <ga_chair@hotmail.com>
Cc: <Harald@Alvestrand.no>; <ga@dnso.org>
Sent: Friday, February 09, 2001 6:46 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] Call for focus.....


> 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
>

--
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