<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [ga] Nomination Procedure for nominating ICANN Board Director candidates
Michael, I am sure that I am simply missing something here... and
can easily acknowledge that. But my response was about why there would
be an election, and had nothing to do, and still doesn't, with who gets
nominated or stands. Or even, ultimately, who I might, as an elected BC
rep endorse, or vote for.
But I suggest that we all work hard to maintain our professional
respect and regard for each others' views.
I am sure that you support that objective as we work through evolution and
reform.
Regards, Marilyn
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael D. Palage [mailto:michael@palage.com]
Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 10:54 PM
To: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA; Elisabeth Porteneuve; fausett@lextext.com;
ga@dnso.org
Subject: RE: [ga] Nomination Procedure for nominating ICANN Board
Director candidates
I will await your response. However, I am tired of politics and one of the
reasons that I have been supportive of ICANN reform from its inception. Now
there are other constituencies that can claim to have been supportive of
reform, but there were so many damn qualification/conditions in connection
with their support that it was effectively meaningless.
I support ICANN reform because the politics and horse trading of ICANN 1.0
make me sick to the stomach. While a select few people wear out their
welcome on the Hill and the Department of Commerce, there are small to
medium size businesses struggling to make a living. They do not have the
luxury to send an army of lobbyists to DC to manipulate the truth on a daily
basis.
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ga@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga@dnso.org]On Behalf Of
Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 10:07 PM
To: Michael D. Palage; Elisabeth Porteneuve; fausett@lextext.com;
ga@dnso.org
Subject: RE: [ga] Nomination Procedure for nominating ICANN Board
Director candidates
Michael, I think you have misinterpreted my suggestions, which were about
procedures, not really about principles. Principles are very different. :-)
.....the rest of your message simply escapes me, probably because I tied up
on other
key activities ...
BUT, I promise, I will try to play catch up on politics this week end...
Regards, Marilyn Cade
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael D. Palage [mailto:michael@palage.com]
Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 9:53 PM
To: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA; Elisabeth Porteneuve; fausett@lextext.com;
ga@dnso.org
Subject: RE: [ga] Nomination Procedure for nominating ICANN Board
Director candidates
Marilyn:
I agree in part with the principles that you have discussed, however, it is
the outcome in which I respectfully disagree. I believe that when the Names
Council extended Philip's term as Chair, despite an understood rule that a
Chair serve no more than two consecutive 6 month terms, you were one of the
individuals that argued about the need for continuity during this critical
juncture of the Names Council.
Following this same line of logic which you previously advocated to extend
Philip's term, then Alejandro is really the only qualified candidate to
serve on the ICANN Board based upon the critical role which he has served
chairing the ICANN Evolution and Reform Committee. Aside from his excellent
qualifications, the reasons I nominated him for a second term, regardless of
how short it may be, was because he is the most uniquely qualified
individual to serve in that capacity.
I would respectfully submit that you should ask Grant, your fellow Business
Constituency Names Council Representative, NOT to accept his nomination, and
support Alejandro's reelection/extension based on the same exact reasons
that Philip was granted an extension as Chair of the Names Council.
Just my two cents.
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ga@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga@dnso.org]On Behalf Of
Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 8:01 PM
To: Elisabeth Porteneuve; fausett@lextext.com; ga@dnso.org
Subject: RE: [ga] Nomination Procedure for nominating ICANN Board
Director candidates
I support Elisabeth's views on this. ERC will make recommendations; the
community will comment; the Board will make decisions... BUT, that doesn't
mean that "flash cut"... or "flag day" happens. :-)
One would expect transitions, and in the implementation of the version of
the
Blueprint, would come the need to institutionalize the changes... for
instance,the
reestantiation of the policy council for the gTLD SO; likewise for hte ccTLD
SO.
So, we should proceed. The worse thing that happens is that we need to make
sure board candidates understand the situation and are committed to the
outcomes that they could find themselves with a short term, or no term...
THAT doesn't mean that we don't take this seriously. I certainly do.
-----Original Message-----
From: Elisabeth Porteneuve [mailto:Elisabeth.Porteneuve@cetp.ipsl.fr]
Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 3:10 PM
To: fausett@lextext.com; ga@dnso.org
Subject: Re: [ga] Nomination Procedure for nominating ICANN Board
Director candidates
Bret,
Today Bylaws set up obligations on each SOs, one of them is to proceed
on time and to elect ICANN Board directors.
Until we receive the clear implementation schedule and timeline
for ICANN 2 (whatever it is, as amended in Bucharest, work in progress,
letters to DoC in progress, see your own blog), we have to follow rules.
Otherwise it is anarchy.
Elisabeth Porteneuve
--
> From owner-ga@dnso.org Fri Aug 9 18:56 MET 2002
> User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/10.1.0.2006
> Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2002 09:55:55 -0700
> Subject: Re: [ga] Nomination Procedure for nominating ICANN Board Director
> candidates
> From: Bret Fausett <fausett@lextext.com>
> To: DNSO Secretariat <DNSO.secretariat@dnso.org>, <ga@dnso.org>
> Message-ID: <B979422B.ED22%fausett@lextext.com>
> Mime-version: 1.0
> Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
>
> Can someone clarify what we're doing here? I'm a bit confused. By the time
> the new Director elected pursuant to the just announced process would be
> seated, the Reform process will have been completed. I'm assuming that the
> Blueprint, or something very close to it, will be in place at that point,
> which would give the GNSO only two Board seats.
>
> In the likely event the Blueprint passes, the GNSO then will need to hold
> *new* elections for its two Board seats. Existing DNSO Board
representatives
> might be reelected, but I wouldn't favor allowing them to retain their
seats
> without standing for election, as that wouldn't account for the GNSO's new
> status (which will have a new make-up to the constituencies) or its new
> priorities.
>
> Is there a way to compress this process so we don't waste time and effort
by
> holding redundant elections?
>
> -- Bret
>
> --
> 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@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@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@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
>>>
|