Re: [wg-c] co-chair

[Rod Dixon <rod@cyberspaces.org>]

I agree with Jon's suggestions and propose that we move toward electing
one of the nominees by agreeing on an election process. Earlier, I
proposed using the IDNO election booth. There is also a proposal to use
this user list and have an open ballot.  At this point, either is
suitable to me. 

I suggest, however, that we first determine what exactly the role of the
chair is going to be along with what effect having two chairs will have
on the role of the chair. I suppose that it is appropriate to have
anyone who has been nominated (or has accepted a nomination) for
chair/co-chair could explain what is it that we are electing them to do. 

Jonathan Weinberg wrote:
> 
>         FWIW --
> 
>         Javier sent out s message on the morning of Tues, 13 Jul, saying:
> >I propose a one-week nomination period and then a three day election if
> >more than one person is nominated.
> 
>         The same day, Siegfried nominated Kent, and Mark nominated himself.  On
> Thursday, Ivan nominated me.  On Saturday, Javier nominated Ivan, Chris and
> Milton (notwithstanding that Ivan had already stated that he would not
> stand).  Chris and Mark immediately withdrew.  On the morning of Tues, 20
> Jul, Kent accepted the nomination.  Seeing Kent's note, I did the same.
> Later on the morning of Tues, Jul 20, Bill nominated Eva.
> 
>         Javier's note rests on two assumptions:  The first is that a nomination is
> not effective until it is formally accepted (for my part, I figure that a
> nomination is effective unless and until it is declined -- and that
> approach, if one cares, is more nearly consistent with Robert's Rules of
> Order).  The second is that we must count the "one week" to the minute,
> rather than to the day.  Here, too, his approach seems to me like the one
> less likely to achieve just results.
> 
>         By my count, Kent, Milton, Eva and I were nominated by the end of Tues Jul
> 20, and (unless I've missed something) none of us has formally declined.  I
> figure that if we want this election actually to represent the will of the
> WG, then we should treat all of us as candidates.
> 
>         I do have one, strongly urged, procedural suggestion:  that there should
> be a run-off if no candidate gets a majority in the initial vote.   That
> way, a much better chance that the person ultimately selected will be the
> one with the strongest support from the WG.
> 
> Jon
> 
> Jon Weinberg
> weinberg@msen.com
> 
> At 08:28 PM 7/23/99 +0200, you wrote:
> >
> >WG C,
> >
> >I am afraid I sent this e-mail a couple of days ago to the wrong e-mail
> >address and never made it to the list.
> >
> >Sorry,
> >
> >Javier
> >
> >---------

-- 


Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M.
Visiting Assistant Professor of Law
Rutgers University School of Law - Camden
rod@cyberspaces.org
http://www.cyberspaces.org