Re: [ga] We "decided" to defer the election of our ICANN board seats

["Mark C. Langston" <skritch@home.com>]

On 17 September 1999, Javier <javier@aui.es> wrote:


>Kilnam,
>
>Your statement is not correct. As stated in the bylaws, candidates must be 
>nominated by the GA. The NC has decided that candidates much receive the 
                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>support of ten members of the GA to be considered. Anybody subscribed to 
>the GA list, the Announce list or any of the constituency lists is 
>considered a member of the GA of the DNSO.
>
>The NC has no role whatsoever in the nominations.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


You don't see the contradiction here, do you?

However, I'll offer you a chance to stick by what you've just said.
Since the NC has no role whatsoever in the nominations, I propose that
the GA hold an election.  In this election, the GA will vote for 3
individuals who maat the necessary criteria for the ICANN BoD.  These
three names will be handed to the NC.  The NC can then deliver them to
the ICANN BoD for us.

After all, the NC has no role whatsoever in the nominations.  I say
that the GA should nominate 3 qualified people for the ICANN BoD.

-- 
Mark C. Langston	LATEST: ICANN refuses	Let your voice be heard:
mark@bitshift.org  to consider application for       http://www.idno.org
Systems Admin    Constituency status from organized http://www.icann.org
San Jose, CA      individual domain name owners      http://www.dnso.org