[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [ga] We "decided" to defer the election of our ICANN board seats
Once again, Roberto has clearly perceived and explained a complex problem.
I strongly agree with his concerns/observations.
And perhaps he has proposed a resolution. Shall the GA "self organize" a
primary election ASAP after nominations are submitted? Shall the
constituencies also make their candidate preferences known prior to the NC
<former> pNC Member
At 12:29 PM 9/17/99 +0200, you wrote:
>> Your statement is not correct. As stated in the bylaws,
>> candidates must be
>> nominated by the GA. The NC has decided that candidates much
>> receive the
>> support of ten members of the GA to be considered. Anybody
>> subscribed to
>> the GA list, the Announce list or any of the constituency lists is
>> considered a member of the GA of the DNSO.
>> The NC has no role whatsoever in the nominations.
>You are absolutely right in the "formal" role of GA and NC.
>Nevertheless, I think that Kilnam Chon is addressing a concern, rather than
>a formal problem, that may be widely shared by other members of the GA.
>Let me give an example.
>Suppose that the Name Council has already decided the three names (please
>bear in mind that this is just reasoning in an extreme case, not making a
>All that it takes is that 10 members of the Council nominate the three
>chosen people to render useless all other nominations that can come from the
>GA members and any discussion on the names.
>I believe that, if we want to adhere to the spirit of the Bylaws, we have to
>provide for the GA a "real" role to play.
>For instance, a debate on the GA like in every electoral campaign, or even a
>pronouncement of the GA on the names.
>What I am thinking of is much like a "primary" round (much like the US
>Presidential elections) where you have a first screening of the candidates
>(lawyers, please follow up on this with concrete proposals if you find it
>It will be unwise to take the risk of the Names Council electing one or more
>persons that do not have the support of the DNSO Membership (the GA), even
>if this is formally allowed by the Bylaws.
>In other words, the Council should say the final word on a pool of
>candidates that have already some support of the GA as a whole.