[ga] Re: Motion for a vote of no confidence in the Board

[DannyYounger@cs.com]

Mike Roberts writes:  "The direct election option is gone."   

It doesn't matter that after a year-long study the ALSC still supported 
direct elections, that NAIS supported direct elections, that Public Forum 
participants supported direct elections, that the GA, NCDNHC,BC, gTLDs 
supported direct elections... the only thing that matters to Mike is that we 
resign ourselves to acceptance of the verdict of the Board to eliminate 
direct elections.  

Why should we?  

If this Board is incapable of recognizing broad consensus, then why we should 
we bother to participate in any schemes to retain these incumbents?  Did the 
Board recognize the consensus on the VeriSign renegotiations?  Did the Board 
respect the consensus on dot org?  Of course not, and rather than abiding by 
the rules "as they are required to do" and remanding policy recommendations 
back to the originating SO's for further work if so required, they instead 
arbitrarily and capriciously crafted their own resolutions at odds with the 
community will.  This has become an ugly pattern.

There are no checks on the power of this Board-run-amok.  Until such checks 
are in place, why should we choose to cooperate?  Any consensus that we reach 
is guaranteed to be overturned by the Board with no right of appeal other 
than to the same smug insiders that sit on the reconsideration committee.

If you expect us to "get to work", give us first an Independent Review Board.
 
--
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