RE: [ga] Nomination Procedure for nominating ICANN Board Director candidates

["Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <mcade@att.com>]

I support Elisabeth's views on this. ERC will make recommendations; the 
community will comment; the Board will make decisions... BUT, that doesn't 
mean that "flash cut"...  or "flag day" happens. :-)

One would expect transitions, and in the implementation of the version of the
Blueprint, would come the need to institutionalize the changes... for instance,the 
reestantiation of the policy council for the gTLD SO; likewise for hte ccTLD SO.

So, we should proceed. The worse thing that happens is that we need to make 
sure board candidates understand the situation and are committed to the 
outcomes that they could find themselves with a short term, or no term...

THAT doesn't mean that we don't take this seriously. I certainly do. 
-----Original Message-----
From: Elisabeth Porteneuve [mailto:Elisabeth.Porteneuve@cetp.ipsl.fr]
Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 3:10 PM
To: fausett@lextext.com; ga@dnso.org
Subject: Re: [ga] Nomination Procedure for nominating ICANN Board
Director candidates




Bret,

Today Bylaws set up obligations on each SOs, one of them is to proceed
on time and to elect ICANN Board directors.

Until we receive the clear implementation schedule and timeline
for ICANN 2 (whatever it is, as amended in Bucharest, work in progress,
letters to DoC in progress, see your own blog), we have to follow rules.
Otherwise it is anarchy.

Elisabeth Porteneuve

--
> From owner-ga@dnso.org Fri Aug  9 18:56 MET 2002
> User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/10.1.0.2006
> Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2002 09:55:55 -0700
> Subject: Re: [ga] Nomination Procedure for nominating ICANN Board Director
> 	candidates
> From: Bret Fausett <fausett@lextext.com>
> To: DNSO Secretariat <DNSO.secretariat@dnso.org>, <ga@dnso.org>
> Message-ID: <B979422B.ED22%fausett@lextext.com>
> Mime-version: 1.0
> Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
> 
> Can someone clarify what we're doing here? I'm a bit confused. By the time
> the new Director elected pursuant to the just announced process would be
> seated, the Reform process will have been completed. I'm assuming that the
> Blueprint, or something very close to it, will be in place at that point,
> which would give the GNSO only two Board seats.
> 
> In the likely event the Blueprint passes, the GNSO then will need to hold
> *new* elections for its two Board seats. Existing DNSO Board representatives
> might be reelected, but I wouldn't favor allowing them to retain their seats
> without standing for election, as that wouldn't account for the GNSO's new
> status (which will have a new make-up to the constituencies) or its new
> priorities. 
> 
> Is there a way to compress this process so we don't waste time and effort by
> holding redundant elections?
> 
>         -- Bret
> 
> --
> 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
> 
> 
--
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

--
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