Re: [ga] vote appeal

[Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@Alvestrand.no>]

Eric,
repeated for the Nth time:

- there were NO rule changes made during the process.
   A lot of noise was made about whether or not we needed rule changes;
   it turned out we did not need them.
- the 10 endorsement thing was a result of the Names Council NOT changing
   the rules from last year, and was never a part of the GA process.
   You seem to be unable to grasp the fact that there were TWO processes
   here, running at the same time: The GA process and the NC process.
- your reading of the GA election process is wrong; there has never been
   a requirement for a "whole other subsequent election for Alternate Chair".

Your charges stem from your own inadequate reading of what has been put
before you.

         Harald Alvestrand, EX-alternate chair of the DNSO General Assembly


At 17:15 11.04.2001 -0700, Eric Dierker wrote:
>Yesterday I posted the following to this list and to Mr.Gaetano,
>
>  http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-full/Arc07/msg00580.html
>I have received no response.
>Today I sent a private email requesting some type of response I got
>none.
>
>I looked to see if there was an objection or appeal process, there is
>not one. There is absolutely no reference to 10 nominations being needed
>to run for chair. And I think Mr. Corliss had all 10 of his lined up
>when that was announced. hmm.
>
>I then looked at the rules and found this:
>http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2001.GA-chair-election-rules-v0.2.html
>SELECTION OF THE ALTERNATE CHAIR
>
>The same process as for chair is used, but the candidate selected for
>chair is eliminated before the counting starts.
>
>(NOTE: This is likely to be a different candidate than the runner-up in
>the selection procedure for chair, for instance when 90% of the
>electorate
>rank one person first and another second, while the remaining 10% vote
>for a third. Re-running the process is considered more likely to select
>a
>team that can work well together.)
>
>This shows that there was no need to change any rules, the process
>itself would handle JW's withdrawal. And that we are supposed to have a
>whole other subsequent election for Alternate Chair
>
>  Then I looked at the watchdog list and found this;
>  http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-watchdog/Arc00/
>
>Which shows the committe knew that they would change the outcome of the
>election if they changed the rules, allowing for revoting.
>
>This is disgusting.  I can understand why these people do not want me as
>alternate, but why did they do so much to get Mr. Corliss?  Could it be
>his association with a competitor to ICANN.
>
>The clock is ticking I cannot ignore this!
>
>Sincerely,
>
>--
>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