Re: [ga] Individuals' Constituency Task Force Member
At 17:07 8/06/01 +0100, Michael Froomkin wrote:
>I agree with both parts of the message quoted below..
> > First I would think a call for nominations for the position would be in
> > order and then a vote by the GA to select the member the assembly thinks
> > would be best suited. If the GA is agreeable to the Chair specifying the
> > appointment, I have no objection but will point out it may give reason for
> > others in future to state a rejection of the choice.
I too agree with this point.
> > Second, Joop, as you mention has been predominate in the attempts to
> > instigate an Individuals Constituency. He has made petition to the ICANN
> > Board in his endevours. For reasons of their own, the Board has not
> > looked favourably on the submissions made by Joop and it appears that he is
> > not held in favour with that forum. This may cause his participation in
> > the process to taint, in the Board's eyes, the outcomes. I say this not to
> > belittle Joops achievements or to cast aspirations against him, but to
> > highlight the fact he appears to have generated some disfavour in certain
> > quarters.
I have not noticed any personal resentment from any Board member at any time.
I'm afraid the above "it appears" is based on giving credence to Mr
Pacificroot's "done deal" with ICANN staff .
If we want to go "top down" we might as well be consistent and ask for the
Board or the NC to appoint a GA member as part of the task force.
The GA has been able to elect its own chair. It should be able to elect its
own delegate to an NC task force.
Founder of the Cyberspace Association.
Former bootstrap of the IDNO (www.idno.org)
Developer of The Polling Booth
This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html