[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[ga] Lets play it safe
> I was personally for three, but I'll take it back, and play it safe with
This "safety" is two edged. It assures the "pleasure" (in the regal sense) of
those who oppose a meaningful role for the GA while causing extreme disturbance
for those advocating "bottom-up, self-organizing consensus based" management.
For the latter, moving from one to three "candidates" was unacceptable. They
claim that a body should elect its own chairman. For them, it will be a
compromise of a "compromise" if we further dilute the "membership's" role by
forwarding five candidates to the NC.
ICANN needs more, not less community support. It needs its members, whomever
they may ultimately be, to feel they have a meaningful role and that their
interests are fairly and well represented. The structures we build should be
aimed at that end. And, we should be wary of anything supporting the
proposition that this governance is managed by an exclusive group at the top.
Playing it "safe" from the "community acceptance" point of view, requires that
we can recommend no more than three candidates.