Re: [ga] Re: Discussion Draft -- ICANN Reorganization
It reflects the evolution of thinking since jan 24 - the nominations process
was one area that stuart left kind of loose, not knowing what he might hear
from the GAC. I think an IETF-like nominations process might work, with a
gov't slate selected by nom committee and approved (or not) by the gov't
At 03:58 PM 3/17/2002 -0500, Jonathan Weinberg wrote:
>On Sun, 17 Mar 2002, vint cerf wrote:
>> the proposal that stuart made would not put government employees
>> on the board but would offer governments an opportunity to choose
>> among a slate of candidates developed by a nominating committee.
> This is confusing. Stuart's document indicates that under his
>proposal *other* trustees (sec. I.A.1.b) would be generated by a
>Board-selected nominating committee, but it says nothing about a
>nominating committee for the government-selected trustees. On the
>contrary, Stuart's document says simply that these trustees should be
>"nominated by governments (process to be determined)." It amplifies that
>this selection process "should be left to the governments, although it
>could be imagined that these selections could be made either by regional
>governmental organizations or, alternatively, by the ICANN Governmental
> Does your statement reflect a newer version of the proposal?
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