Re: [ga] Request to the GA Chair for a Ballot

["Roberto Gaetano" <ga_chair@hotmail.com>]

Can somebody explain me where the problem is?
This is my POV.

1. We have 4 candidates that are all four eligible under our currently 
adopted rules to be included in the ballot to be issued by the Secretariat 
on 2001-03-31 (and this solves Joop's concern, as he expressed it below).
2. The NC has *its* procedures, never changed AFAIK, that include the "rule 
of ten" (as part of the 1999 rules): these are not GA rules, but NC rules, 
and as correctly pointed out by Joanna, NC should change them (if they 
wish), not us.
3. The NC has expressed its willingness to ratify the choice of the GA, 
therefore to appoint the candidate with more votes: it may do so even if the 
candidate has not received 10+ endorsments in the endorsment phase (but it 
may be source of embarassment).

I interpreted Harald's message in this way: please guarantee that every 
candidate fulfills *also* the 1999 requirements, so that we can avoid 
discussions, and we can avoid potential opposition by any individual member 
of the NC, that may raise formal objections.
I may incidentally note that the number of bytes needed to flow in the Net 
to provide the missing endorsement to the candidates that still did not pass 
the 10 cap is substantially lower than the number of bytes flowing in this 
argumentation.

In any case, I believe that a motion of the GA on this subject is out of 
order for the following reasons:
- it changes the rules of the election while the election is ongoing;
- the motion presented aims at putting to vote a subject that has been 
discussed for not even 24 hours.

As I noted above, even if I accepted this motion, and the GA approved this 
motion, this would only mean to be a recommandation to the NC, who could 
still be free to accept it or to reject it.
In the meantime, rest assured that I will pass the official results of the 
GA election process to the NC without application of the "rule of 10". We 
will elect the candidate(s) according to our rules, and let's the NC take 
its decision according to its rules.

Regards
Roberto



>From: "Joanna Lane" <jo-uk@rcn.com>
>Reply-To: <jo-uk@rcn.com>
>To: "\"Roberto Gaetano\"" <ga_chair@hotmail.com>,        "Joop Teernstra" 
><terastra@terabytz.co.nz>
>CC: <ga@dnso.org>, "Harald Tveit Alvestrand" <harald@Alvestrand.no>
>Subject: [ga] Request to the GA Chair for a Ballot
>Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 02:13:45 -0500
>
>At 16:58 29/03/01 -0500, Joanna Lane wrote:
>
> >In conclusion,  I move that the so called "rule of ten" be dismissed by a
> >formal motion of the GA voting assembly, then the NC will have the 
>guidance
> >they obviously need.
> >
>
>Seconded.
>There is nothing to stop us from proceeding with an election of all
>endorsed candidates.
>
>--Joop
>________________________________________________________
>
>Roberto and all remaining members,
>
>Whereas it is not a requirement of the GA that members of the voting roster
>must also subscribe to the GA mailing list.
>Whereas the standard procedure for determining the will of all those
>affected by election procedure is by Ballot of the Voting Roster prepared 
>by
>the DNSO Secretariat.
>Whereas All candidates for GA Chair and Alternate Chair who have accepted
>the nomination, and had at least two endorsements from members of the 
>voting
>roster of the General Assembly, are considered candidates, under rules
>approved by Ballot of the GA for the 2001 election.
>http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2001.GA-chair-election-rules-v0.2.html
>Whereas  the DNSO Chair and Alternate Chair Election Rules posted to the
>DNSO website on March 16th give a clear description of  the process used to
>select the nominee in accordance with the 2001 rules communicated to the 
>GA.
>. http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2001.DNSO-GAchair.html
>Whereas at its 1999 meeting in LA the NC indicated that it would be guided
>by the GA in appointing a new GA Chair.
>Whereas a DECISION of NC taken in February 2001 to invite the GA to manage
>an election process to select a nominee for appointment by the NC to the
>position of Chair of the GA was unanimously approved by council members.
>Whereas on March 29, immediately prior to closure of the endorsement period
>of the 2001 election, the GA Alternate Chair announced to the GA ML that
>under NC rules adopted for the 1999 Election that none of the candidates
>have enough endorsements to be considered by the Names Council according to
>the rules of the NC selection, which rules increase the number of
>endorsements required by 8 (eight) and require the names of all candidates
>with 10 (ten) or more endorsements to be put forward for the NC to make the
>final selection for GA Chair and Alternate Chair, these being in opposition
>to 2001 rules.  http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc06/msg01473.html
>
>IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the General Assembly ( in their capacity as
>managers of the 2001 election process to select a nominee for appointment 
>by
>the NC to the positions of Chair and Alternate Chair of the GA) to dismiss
>the Rules applied to the previous election in 1999.
>__________________________________________
>The above Resolution to be put to the voting roster by Ballot prepared by
>DNSO Secretariat, to run in tandem with the election process currently
>underway.
>
>BALLOT QUESTIONS
>
>1. The 1999 election rules should be dismissed by the NC
>2. The 1999 election rules should be adopted by the NC
>3. Abstain
>
>
>
>
>--
>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
>

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.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