Re: [ga] Vote
At 02:13 p.m. 4/02/2007, Hugh Dierker wrote: I would suggest that we quickly move forward again. This time I would suggest we vote here and come up with a consensus as to the wording of the next vote. For for that matter we could just come up with a consensus on the vote.
In the Booth we have had 11 votes so far - these voters might not have voted on the list. On the other hand, why have the other 10 self-registered voters not voted? Is more time needed? Below are the results of the first vote; I think it is fair to take that as guidance for the next step. Voters appear to want to elect a chair (and a co-chair) rather than a representative. These were the questions: Provided that GA members will come up with nominations, what position would you first like to hold elections for? 1. GA Chair, to lead and formalize debate 2. a GA "representative" to the ICANN Board and the wider world 3. another position (please describe) 4. No elections, just referenda on our opinions
GA chair: 4 votes GA representative: 2 votes other: 4 votes NO elections: 1 votes Total votes: 11 Under "Other", we had the following comments/suggestions 1.joop teernstra: We should vote for a Chair and a co-Chair as backup. We would not want everything that gets organized to fall apart as soon as the Chair has got enough. 2.Matthew Pemble: Wouldn't the Chair / co-Chair also be able fulfil (if practical) the role as a representative to ICANN? 3.Chris McElroy aka NameCritic: GA Chair is fine, Representative to ICANN and the world at large also, but believe we also need to define broad areas of interest like consumer protection, new tlds, registries and registrars, etc. and split the duties among several people on the list qualified to coordinate things in each specific area. They would also try to recruit more people to join the GA with similar interests. Someone could even hold the position of recruiting officer. 4.Eric Dierker: First we must vote on IF we want representation. And then we can also vote on the kind of representation and I believe there should be the option of two co-chairs. And I believe the voting should not be able to vote until the 1st of February. Also the discussion should not be here in any regard it should always be on the GA list and only there. Eric Hugh Dierker 1/30/07 Three of the "other" votes are in favour of a Chair and Co-chair election, making a total of 7 votes in favour of a Chair election.
I lean toward a spokesperson concept rather than a freewheeling President position. Hopefully internally the two would represent pros and cons here and then go forth with both our majority consensus position and our minority position and do it all here for optimum oppeness and transparency. Let us see if we can now come up with a consensus job description for the chair and co-chair. Then the nominee(s) will have some guidance to accept a nomination (or not). Chris wants more persons having more roles. Great if we have enough active GA members. But first things first. A chair can lay down the procedure and determine consensus about the next vote's wording. -joop-
|