Re: [wg-review] 4. [GA] Comments - Draft Motions

[Derek Conant - DNSGA <dconant@dnsga.org>]

I believe that the very first thing that needs to be addressed for the
election process for GA Chair is voter accountability.

This WG should identify the voters who actually vote for the GA Chair.

Polling is ambiguous in nature and easily manipulated.  At least if voters are identified, there is accountability for the record which gives the record merit.  This is a fundamental and necessary step for any new organization.  Anonymous polling may be used at a later time, however, not during the process of establishing the very basic foundation and integrity of the GA.

There must be trust, understanding and communication in any successful organization.  If you do not have this, you have chaos.

The players involved in framing and developing the US Constitution did not rely on anonymous polling or anonymous voting during their debate processes.  The players debated matters and conducted open votes amongst themselves so they could better understand and communicate with each other.  Then, the finished product, the US Constitution allows for certain anonymous voting.

This WG is working with an inherently flawed governance model that relies on ambiguous polling and is wasting time and energy with its deadline.  Polling in most circles means not real and ambiguous.  How can anyone take polling seriously here?  How can the RTF take polling results seriously?  This appears to be a real problem for the WG and the RTF representatives appear to know it and will probably use it against WG efforts.

You will be more effective walking into a board room with actual voters supporting your recommendation, than anonymous pollers supporting your recommendation.  This is why I requested the motion to identify future voters and that I am against ambiguous polling at this stage of the WG development.

Derek Conant
 

Joanna Lane wrote:

 

In response to the Chair's recommendations, I propose the following motion:-

1. NOMINATION PROCEDURE FOR GA CHAIR

The GA should nominate the candidate for GA Chair as soon as possible.

RECOMMENDATION: To use the same procedures adopted by WG-Review for election of its Co-Chair as follows. The names of all current GA Members (approximately 271) will be put up in the polling booth for voting by GA Members. There is no limit to the number of candidates each member may vote for, but only members who receive 5 or more votes will go through to a second round. The second round will determine the selection of candidate by the Preferential Voting System as detailed by David Farrar in the Archive at http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00725.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. NC ELECTION OF GA CHAIR

The NC should give proper consideration to the candidate selected by the GA for GA Chair, then elect the GA Chair as soon as possible thereafter.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. BYLAWS - ELECTION OF GA CHAIR

The NC should recommend to the ICANN Board of Directors that the bylaws be amended by replacing "the NC shall elect the Chairman of the GA annually." with "the GA shall elect the Chairman of the GA annually according to the voting procedures adopted by the GA".

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have omitted the last recommendation, Bylaws - GA Representation on the NC because we have not yet reviewed the NC in detail.

Joanna