Re: [ga] OBJECTION Re: Transfer TF elections

[Thomas Roessler <roessler@does-not-exist.org>]

[I'm replying to multiple messages here.]

On 2001-12-11 17:33:49 -0800, Jeff Williams wrote:

>Ah, so you individual judgment is superior than to the collective 
>judgment of the DNSO GA members perhaps?  I do hope you are not 
>seriously thinking such.

All I said was that when my judgement entirely differs fom the GA's 
collective judgement, I wouldn't (and shouldn't) represent this GA 
on any TF.  Such representation would quite obviously be pointless.


On 2001-12-11 21:01:37 -0800, Eric Dierker wrote, about my notes on 
procedural points:

>Perhaps I am mistaken but I cannot find any reference to the rules 
>that this premise requires to be persuasive. No rules for the 
>election of TF members, no rules for the determination of who 
>shall be on task forces from the GA.  The closest we find is the 
>rule as set forth earlier today by our chair and it certainly is 
>not persuasive to this premise.

Let me quote Danny Younger's original posting from December 5: 

>Pleased be advised that I have resigned from the names council 
>transfers task force.  At this time, I am only aware of one GA 
>member that has expressed an interest in representing the GA in 
>that capacity, Jeff Williams.  If no one else volunteers for that 
>position, I will appoint Jeff Williams as the GA representative in 
>one week's time.  Should others also declare an interest, an 
>election will be held.

There's not a single word about observers in this message, and the 
most reasonable way to read it was that a single candidate was being 
looked for.  In fact the idea of observers was first presented to 
the GA in a message sent by Danny on Fri, 7 Dec 2001 15:21:38 EST, 
where he says that it "would be logical to have the runner-ups in 
our election serve in such a capacity.  The gTLDs have requested one 
TF rep and two additional participants, and our GA rep will need to 
cast a vote on how many participants will ultimately be allowed 
entry into this TF." This message doesn't contain more than a 
_suggestion_ on how the observers may possibly be selected.  It 
shouldn't be taken as the basis for the rules of this election.

Instead, if this GA wishes to nominate observers to the TF, there 
should either be a vote on the number of representatives to be sent 
to the TF, or there should be an independent vote on these observers 
(with the option for the GA not to accept a possible observer).


On 2001-12-11 16:44:19 -0500, DannyYounger@cs.com wrote:

>Had this been an open working group, all members of the GA would 
>have had an equal opportunity to participate.  Accordingly, I will 
>not seek to deny participation to the only GA members that have 
>thus far expressed any interest or desire in working on this TF.

As you know quite well, we are _not_ talking about a working group, 
but about a task force where constituencies and the GA are supposed 
to send _representatives_.  These are _not_ supposed to send just 
about anyone who may be interested in the topic, but those who may 
reasonably contribute to the discussions of the task force .  You 
may agree with this concept, or you may not, but that should not be 
the issue here.

In particular, the GA should have the right to vote on by whom it is 
represented - and by whom it is _not_ represented.  This should NOT 
be at the discretion of the GA's chair.  (But I start to sound like 
a broken record.)

Finally, note that this is not just the question who may have voting 
rights on the Task Force.  It's also the question who should have a 
right to speak there.  While you may or may not want to deny this 
kind of participation in the TF to any GA member, the GA, 
collectively, may quite well wish to do so, and should have the 
opportunity.

(Note that _everyone_ is able to "observe" the Task Force's work in 
the sense of read access through the web archive.)


-- 
Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.org/
--
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