DNSO Mailling lists archives


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

Re: [ga] vote appeal

Eric Dierker wrote:

>Yesterday I posted the following to this list and to Mr.Gaetano,
>  http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-full/Arc07/msg00580.html
>I have received no response.
>Today I sent a private email requesting some type of response I got

You might have noticed that I did not post to the GA for 48 hours. It 
sometimes happens that people that do something else for a living do not 
have the possibility for accessing the GA list and the private account 
dedicated to it. Sorry.

>I looked to see if there was an objection or appeal process, there is
>not one.

Correct, there's no objection or appeal.
Should there be one? I checked the ga-watchdog list before answering your 
previous message, and there was nothing pending either.

>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.

As explained for the nth time, no reference to the rule of 10 can exist, as 
no rule of 10 was in place for this election.
In fact, you are the only candidate that had less than 10 endorsements (not 
nominations), but you were on the voting ballot with the others that did.
What is exactly your objection?

>I then looked at the rules and found this:
>The same process as for chair is used, but the candidate selected for
>chair is eliminated before the counting starts.

Otherwise, we would have the same person elected as Chair and AltChair ;>)

>(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
>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
>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 the process did.
All ballots were taken into consideration, including Jonathan's (whom we 
already knew would have withdrawn).
There was no need to change any rules, and no rules were changed.
Again, what is the complaint?

>And that we are supposed to have a
>whole other subsequent election for Alternate Chair

Here I don't follow anymore.
If the rule for AltChair is the one you quote, why should it be changed?
Why to have a whole subsequent election if it was clearly stated that the 
AltChair would have been elected using the same ballots, but discarding the 
(already elected) Chair?
What is the basis for your claim that "a whole other subsequent election for 
Alternate Chair" was needed?

>  Then I looked at the watchdog list and found this;
>  http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-watchdog/Arc00/
>Which shows the committe knew that they would change the outcome of the
>election if they changed the rules, allowing for revoting.

I re-read all the messages, and did not find anything similar to what you 
You indicate an archive in your url. Can you please indicate which message, 
and which passage, states that we would change the outcome of the vote?
And please send your complaint to the right address, i.e. 

>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.

Apparently, who did not want you are the voters, who ranked you in the last 
place, even behind the candidate who did already withdraw.

>The clock is ticking I cannot ignore this!

Neither do I.


Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

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 >>>