[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

"Mark C. Langston" wrote:

> On 17 September 1999, Javier <javier@aui.es> wrote:
> >Kilnam,
> >
> >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 don't see the contradiction here, do you?
> However, I'll offer you a chance to stick by what you've just said.
> Since the NC has no role whatsoever in the nominations, I propose that
> the GA hold an election.  In this election, the GA will vote for 3
> individuals who maat the necessary criteria for the ICANN BoD.  These
> three names will be handed to the NC.  The NC can then deliver them to
> the ICANN BoD for us.

You are wrong, I am afraid, and Javier is right. The procedure is

a)    the GA nominates.
b)    the NC votes.

The NC as a body plays no part in making nominations. Which is exactly what
I understood Javier to mean.

To be duly elected a successful candidate for the ICANN Board from the DNSO
must receive an affirmative vote of more than 50% of the Names Council.

Simple, isn't it?

> After all, the NC has no role whatsoever in the nominations.  I say
> that the GA should nominate 3 qualified people for the ICANN BoD.
> --
> Mark C. Langston        LATEST: ICANN refuses   Let your voice be heard:
> mark@bitshift.org  to consider application for       http://www.idno.org
> Systems Admin    Constituency status from organized http://www.icann.org
> San Jose, CA      individual domain name owners      http://www.dnso.org