[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
> 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.