[council] GA Chair.....
----- Original Message -----
From: "Erica Roberts" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: "Roberto Gaetano" <email@example.com>; "Greg Burton"
Cc: <Harald@Alvestrand.no>; <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 8:09 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] Call for focus.....
> 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.
> the discussion at the LA meeting, I will be proposing that the NC invite
> 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.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Greg Burton" <email@example.com>
> To: "Roberto Gaetano" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Cc: <Harald@Alvestrand.no>; <email@example.com>
> 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
> > >>days for nomination and acceptance, and 7 days for the poll. This
> > >>close on the 23rd, then, and give the NC at least a couple of days to
> > >>over what we've done.
> > >
> > >To me, a reasonable target would be to have ICANN dealing with the
> > >change in relation to the GA Chairperson election in the Melbourne
> > Yes - but that doesn't mean the board will deal with them at that time.
> > 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
> > the review task force when it's re-constituted to recommend
> > strategies to the NC, so getting a new chair is crucial to representing
> > 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
> > comments to the task force review document making that recommendation
> > 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?
> > >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
> > 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
> > Harald's calculations, we already can't do it in time. I posted what
> > need to do on the 4th - it's already the 9th, before there was any
> > Since the NC seems willing to select whoever the GA wants, for us to
> > in this means that responsibility for the lack of a GA chair falls
> > on the GA , not the NC.
> > <sarcasm>
> > This should do wonders for our credibility.
> > </sarcasm>
> > Regards,
> > Greg
> > firstname.lastname@example.org
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the email@example.com list.
> > Send mail to firstname.lastname@example.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 email@example.com list.
> Send mail to firstname.lastname@example.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html