Re: [ga] [fwd] Nominating Committee & at-large (from: roessler@does-not-exist.org)

[DPF <david@farrar.com>]

On Thu, 6 Jun 2002 17:27:58 +0200, Thomas Roessler
<roessler@does-not-exist.org> wrote:

>If I'm strongly mistaken about what you folks think, please speak up 
>now, so I can send a correction to the council. ;-)

Looks fine to me.  I think it is crucial that we try to get ICANN to
front up on what the composition of the nominating/selection committee
will be, because I suspect they are going to try and get everyone to
agree to the notion in principle and then once that happens come out
with a composition which will not be particularly diverse and ram it
through as a minor detail.

DPF

>
>
>
>
>
>----- Forwarded message from Thomas Roessler <roessler@does-not-exist.org> -----
>
>From: Thomas Roessler <roessler@does-not-exist.org>
>To: council@dnso.org
>Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 17:27:12 +0200
>Subject: Nominating Committee & at-large
>Mail-Followup-To: council@dnso.org
>
>I may have not been as clear as I should be in one of my statements  
>during today's call, concerning the relationship between a  
>nominating committee and an at-large membership, so let me try to  
>clarify this a bit more.
>
>1. It is safe to assume that most of the GA's members (certainly  
>most of its active ones) would clearly favor direct at-large  
>elections over any nominating (or rather: selection) committee  
>approach.
>
>2. Since that doesn't seem to be feasible at this point of time,  
>reserving a number of board seats for an at-large membership, and  
>having the selection committeee fill these seats as a stop-gap  
>measure, is certainly preferable over assigning these seats to a  
>selection committee for all future, effectively eliminating even the 
>notion of an at-large membership.
>
>3. In order to make such an arrangement more than just a  
>lip-service, the reservation of board seats for an at-large  
>membership would have to have some teeth - for instance, a bylaws  
>provision which mandates at-large elections at a well-defined point  
>of time in the future, provided certain factual conditions are  
>fulfilled.  Bad enough, it seems unlikely to me that the current 
>board would even consider such a change.
>
>4. Maybe having some kind of open election for some (or even all?   
>;-) members of the selection committee may be the way to go for at  
>least some at-large membership representation within the structure  
>currently proposed.
>	  
>-- 
>Thomas Roessler                          http://log.does-not-exist.org/
>
>----- End forwarded message -----

--
david@farrar.com
ICQ 29964527
--
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