DNSO Mailling lists archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [ga] withdrawal of candidacy

Hello Eric,

Let me remind you :-
1) That On 26th of February , the Names Council decided 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.
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010226.NCtelecon-minutes.html  The NC, BY
ITS OWN POLICY has no reason to overturn the process unless specific
circumstances are met (see paragraph 3 below), which they have not.
2)The NC requested the Secretariat to determine dates and move the process
forward. http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2001.DNSO-GAchair.html , which it
did (Thank you Elisabeth), according to rules approved by the GA
3) A nomination watchdog committee was formed to police the nomination
process to help detect and cure any instances of fraudulent activity in
connection with the nomination process. Any instances of fraudulent
nominations or endorsements would have been be reported to the committee by
now, with a copy to the Names Council, which they have not. There is nothing
fraudulent about Jon Weinberg's resignation as a candidate. The watchdog
committee and the Names Council only have the sole discretion as to how to
deal with any such reported activity, not any other kind of activity.
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2001.DNSO-GAchair.html This is the limit of
their powers in this election.

Personally, I too am disappointed that a person of Jon's immense knowledge
and experience has decided to withdraw from the election, but as I stated
publicly, the level of commitment he could bring to the job was questionable
and I now applaud him for the courage to acknowledge his own limitations.
Equally, I have no reason to doubt that Jon will bring whatever expertise he
can to the GA in the future, including guidance to whoever is elected to GA
Chair, and that his contributions will be commensurate to the time he has
available, whether or not he carries the "label" of GA Chair.

At the end of the day, there is more at stake than any one candidate. Due
process must be followed, regardless of the results, and a little faith at
this point is all that is required.


 Ken Stubbs wrote:

> am i to assume then that the vote i cast is for naught .

That is an interesting question.  Harald suggests that this case is not
by the rules, but should be resolved by having your vote count exactly as
would have cast it had Jonathan not been in the race (i.e. that the election
proceed with the current ballot, but that his votes would be ignored in
your preferences under STV).  Others have suggested that this situation is
analogous to that in which the deceased Carnahan beat the living Ashcroft in
Missouri senate race--e.g. that Jonathan's votes must be counted as if he
were a
viable candidate, and, should he "win," that result will be taken as  "none
the above."

Treating the NC as "governor" acting upon a clean slate would frustrate the
reported desire to appoint someone approved by a vote of the GA.  But, some
objecting to the loss of options for voters who preferred Jonathan.  His
candidacy may have kept others from running who would have appealed to the
constituency.   Neither option--taking the "second" choice or vesting "clean
slate" discretion in the NC--may be satisfactory from their point of view.
Their concerns may only be met by starting the process again, from
to voting.

This issue must be resolved by the NC which created the election structure
time table.  But, it is something we can address by suggesting a rule to
this and similar cases.

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-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>