RE: [ga] nomination procedures

[R.Gaetano@iaea.org]

Kent Crispin wrote:
> 
>   The GA will select five nominated names and forward those 5 names
>   to the NC.  The list of five names will include the following:
> 

Do I understand correctly that you propose that the GA members nominate
candidates, and then select (with a vote, I assume) 5 candidates to forward
to the NC from the set of nominees that have at least 10 statements of
support?

>   1) Levels of support will be shown by a list of 10 names of GA
>   members in support of the nominee.  We use the same definition of
>   "GA member" that was used for the BoD nomination:  Any member of 
>   the ga, ga-announce, WG lists, and Constituency lists.
> 

I strongly disagree on that.
This is the election of the GA chair, I don't see why we should include the
constituencies and/or the working groups.
Moreover, we have already seen the mess generated by the fact that multiple
lists are used as a basis for the electorate. Why should we repeat the same
mistake?


>   2) To assure that the NC can make an educated evaluation of
>   candidates, each nominee must provide a short background, and
>   statement of purpose and objectives the nominee has in the role as
>   Chair of the GA.  This should include: what the nominee can and
>   will do for the GA and its role in the DNSO; how they intend to
>   interact with the NC and the 7 constituencies within the DNSO and
>   the GA; and anything else the nominee considers important. 
> 
> 
> John's proposal is essentially a continuation of the status quo; and
> there is no mechanism to select between new proposals.  At some
> future time we may have such a mechanism, but we don't now, and we
> aren't likely to get anything close to agreement on anything new in
> the time frame available to us. 
> 

I would not be so pessimistic.
I think that some of the proposals are technically different, but not
different in the spirit. Some grouping may be possible.

For instance, I don't think that it will be impossible to merge:

2. Jonathan Miller:
3. Jonathan Weinberg:
4. Roberto Gaetano:
7. Javier Rodriguez:
8. John Klensin:

They all aim at having the GA coming up (with a more or less sophisticated
mechanism) with a set of 3 to 5 names to propose to NC.

Also, 6. Jonathan Weinberg is not an independent proposal, it restates 3.
and 4. above.

Regards
Roberto

> 
>                --------------------------------
> 
> Here is the list of proposals -- 8 by my count.  Some overlap and
> retraction, but it's hard know for sure...
> 
> 
> 1. Idno: 
> 
>   WE NOMINATE A SINGLE CANDIDATE FOR THE NC TO CHOOSE FROM
> 
> 2. Jonathan Miller:
> 
>   potential candidates post and a list of credentials
> 
>   We then need to develop a procedure by which the GA
>   can vote on perspective candidates and elect nominees.  I submit
>   that there needs to be an impartial collection of votes to insure
>   the integrity of this process.  Further, I suggest that the top
>   five nominees from the GA be submitted to the Names Council for
>   consideration. 
> 
> 3. Jonathan Weinberg:
> 
>   I propose that we use the same mechanism for putting forward names,
>   and demonstrating support, that we used in nominating individuals
>   as DNSO selections for the ICANN Board.
> 
>   The more difficult
>   question is how many names we should forward to the NC.  Jonathan
>   Miller recommended that we forward the top five vote-getters;
>   myself, I'd suggest forwarding the top three. 
> 
> 4. Roberto Gaetano:
> 
>   1.  "Nominators" 
> 
>   The "nominators" are the individuals subscribed to the GA list at
>   the date of opening of the nomination period (26th of November
>   1999, time-of-day TBD).
> 
>   2.  Nominees
>              
>   The nominee has to be a member of the GA (at date/time above).
>   
>   whoever is accepting to run for Chairman should resign from NC or
>   ICANN BoD, if applicable and should not be an officer of other
>   Supporting Organizations
> 
>   3.  Preferences
> 
>   Each "nominator" can express 3 preferences, in a definite order. 
>   The first preference counts 3 points, the second 2, the third 1. 
>   Preferences have to be geographically distributed, i.e.  not more
>   than one person per geographical region.  if a nominee renounces,
>   the nominator loses his/her vote.  I propose that we start already
>   nominating informally candidates
> 
>   4.  Results
> 
>   The 3 nominees totalizing the highest number of "points" will be
>   proposed to the Name Council as the GA candidates.  No geographical
>   distribution criterion is applied (in other words, the three names
>   transmitted to the NC can come from the same region). 
> 
> 5. Andy Gardner:
> 
>   I hereby move that the person who received the greatest support
>   from the DNSO during the GA board membership nominations be the
>   sole DNSO nominee for the GA chair position. 
> 
> 6. Jonathan Weinberg:
> 
>   [1] Each GA member casts X votes (that is, one vote for each of X
>   candidates) with preferential weighting (Roberto's proposal)
> 
>   [2] Each GA member can vote for as many candidiates as he chooses
>   (my proposal -- it's the system we used to "vote" for the DNSO's
>   ICANN Bd members). 
> 
> 
> 7. Javier Rodriguez:
> 
>   1) All the list members on the GA and Announcement list are able to
>   give 3 votes. 
>   2) The will put the name of the 3 people in order.  The first one
>   will get 3 points, the 2nd one will get 2 points and the third one
>   will get 1 point. 
>   3) It is possible to vote just for 2 people, the first one with 3
>   points, and the 2nd one with one point.  In the same fashion is
>   possible to vote just for one person who will get 3 points. 
>   4) All the members in the GA and Announcement lists who are
>   subscribed before Nov.  19 are able to vote. 
>   5) The 10 most voted candidates will go for a second round in the
>   same fashion: 3,2,1 points for the first, second, and 3rd name that
>   each person write in his/her mail. 
>   5) From this 10 list, the 2 most voted pre-candidates will be
>   presented to the NC so this body can choose wich one they feel
>   would be a Chairman who will have strong support from the members
>   of the GA (Understanding the GA as the members of both lists: GA
>   and Annoucements). 
> 
> 
> 8. John Klensin:
> 
>   I would suggest that we return to a (somewhat more clear)
>   variation of the theme used to nominate people for consideration
>   for the board, i.e., a nomination and some minimum threshold of
>   endorsers, rather than an election.  It is obviously important that
>   we be clear about the rules and conventions this time, e.g., who
>   can nominate or endorse and whether any special value is to be
>   attributed to extra endorsers.  But, since I can't read the current
>   procedures as requiring the NC to accept the GA's first choice,
>   even if such a choice could be clearly determined, I don't see a
>   lot of point in trying to cut things more finely than that. 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
> kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
>