Re: [ga] vote appeal
- To: "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Harald Alvestrand <Harald@Alvestrand.no>, "Babybows.com" <email@example.com>, Don Evans <DEvans@doc.gov>, icann board address <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Jeff Williams <email@example.com>, Sotiropoulos <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Bret Fausett <email@example.com>, "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Eric Dierker <ERIC@HI-TEK.COM>
- Subject: Re: [ga] vote appeal
- From: "JandL" <email@example.com>
- Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 23:43:50 -0400
- In-reply-to: <3AD4F3B5.E372DA3C@HI-TEK.COM>
- Reply-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Sender: email@example.com
> Yesterday I posted the following to this list and to Mr.Gaetano,
> I have received no response.
> Today I sent a private email requesting some type of response I got
> 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:
> 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;
> 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.
What competitor to ICANN? Are you referring to the TLDA? A trade
association is not a competitor to ICANN and its membership would
be open to ICANN as representative of the DoC, since DoC is a TLD
AuDA? Is a ccTLD a competitor?
His private business consulting business? I don't think so.
I don't see where there was any more involved with Mr. Corliss'
campaigning than yours, Eric. I did not see anything on the list to
indicate that there was anything amiss with the election. As a
matter of fact, considering the circumstances, I think it went
extremely well. Everyone had the opportunity to vote correctly and
the tally was handled properly. If the election were to be held
today, I believe the results would be the same.
> The clock is ticking I cannot ignore this!
> This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
> Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html