[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[ga] GA CHAIR NOMINATION PROPOSALS
Respected members of the DNSO Names Council,
This is a compiled list of all of the received proposals by the GA list
and is current as of yesterday. There May have been other proposals which
you recived today directly from some of the individual members of the GA
and some of them may in fact be the same proposals that you see here on
Unlike the proposals submitted by individual members, this list indicates
not only the amount of support that each proposal received, but also the
names of the particular members and which particular proposals we support.
Whereas there is currently no Chairperson for the GA, or List Chair for
the GA list, I have taken the liberty, with the support of the members of
the GA, to forward this list of proposals with regards to the "Nomination
of a GA Chair' on to you as prescribed.
The last update of this list occured at 19:00hrs PDT (UTC -08:00).
Bradley D. Thornton
Manager Network Services
Member: DNSO General Assembly
===== Candidate Nomination Proposals =====
Proposals for the methodology in the nomination of GA Chair candidates.
One or more to be presented to the NC for consideration by 19 Nov 1999.
The current list with accumulated level of support so far, a/o 19:30hrs
PDT (-0800 UTC) 19 NOV 1999.
1. Idno (Bradley D. Thornton): (6)
WE NOMINATE A SINGLE CANDIDATE FOR THE NC TO CHOOSE FROM
2. Jonathan Miller: (1)
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
3. Jonathan Weinberg: (2)
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: (2)
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).
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
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
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 #1: (4)
Chris Ambler - Seconded
Bradley D. Thornton
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: Withdrawn and noted as an error via notification by
Mr. Weinberg @18:30 hrs PDT (UTC -08:00) 19 November 1999. Please
Disregard this Proposal (#6) as it was never meant as such according to
 Each GA member casts X votes (that is, one vote for each of X
candidates) with preferential weighting (Roberto's proposal)
 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: (5)
Joop Teernstra - Seconded
William X. Walsh
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
8. John Klensin: (1)
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.
9. Andy Gardner #2: (2)
Chris Ambler - Seconded
I hereby move:
"That the two people who received the greatest support from the DNSO
GA during the GA board membership nominations be put forward to the NC as
the two nominees chosen by the GA for the GA chair position."
FROOMKIN AMMENDMENT PROPOSAL: (4)
(Proposed by Michael Froomkin to be attached to any/each of the above
proposal in the event of acceptance)
I'd like to suggest a refinement that applies equally to any procedure.
Whatever system is used should build in time for candidates to make some
sort of statement about their general views. We should construct
a system that encourages some sort of discussion between candidates
and the electorate as well, so that issues are ventilated rather than have
the election be one of personality.
END PROPOSAL LIST