Re: [ga] On Elections

[Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear All,
   
  I take full responsibility for the recent elections. We were between a rock 
and a hard spot.
  The current chair term was set to expire. Nothing could be done without a 
chair. We were in the process of amending our rules pursuant to GNSO mandate. 
But we could not wait for that process to finish prior to electing a chair. An 
abundance of notice was given and the rules were followed as close as was 
reasonable.
   
  I will never again engage in an election process without a confidential 
polling booth. That was a mistake, somewhat excused by the circumstances.
   
  It was good to see the dissenting votes and the followup open debate. 
Certainly we can only do better in the future.

  We should remain open to suggestions on how to make the structure and process 
better.
   
  Eric
  As Chair
  
Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
  
I recall a time when elections were properly supported
by Elisabeth Porteneuve in her capacity as DNSO
Secretariat. Fair elections, elections by the book.

Recently, however, members of the ICANN community have
been forced to make the best of a bad situation by
setting up their own election processes without the
benefit of proper Secretariat support. So... there
were issues associated with the NARALO election and
there were issues raised regarding the GA election --
issues that we probably wouldn't have had if true
Secretariat support had been in place.

I refer everyone to the comments of Denise Michel to
the GNSO Council on the topic of support for the GA:

"I'd like to clarify that, at this time, no additional
staff resources are available, beyond what is
currently provided, to support the GA list. The GA
list participants' email to the Council may be
interpreted as requesting additional resources for
more list monitoring, posting removed addresses, and
supporting "GA chair elections." We can not
accommodate this additional work at this time."

Here we have an organization (ICANN) that calls out
for participation at every opportunity, an
organization with a $50 million budget, an
organization with a full-time Staff member as a Public
Participation manager, and yet ICANN won't support
basic secretariat services that would allow for proper
elections to be held.

Pretty sad. But that's the reality. 

So, I would suggest setting aside our petty
differences in order to concentrate on solving a
bigger problem, namely that while we are rabidly
attacking each other (just as we did in the IDNO and
just as we did in ICANNatLarge) we are missing the
opportunity to responsibly act in the interest of the
registrant community.

I remember when certain individuals on this list were
passionate advocates for an Individual Registrant's
Constituency (IRC). Well, registrants could certainly
use your help right now going into the RAA Revisions
cycle -- instead, you're spending your time on really
inconsequential process issues.

You'll never get a better chance to create the
protections that registrants deserve than right now,
but you're blowing your opportunity by getting
side-tracked. 

It's time for everyone to cool off and think about why
we're here.

When you're ready to offer suggestions as to how
registrants may better be protected, send through a
note to raa-consultation[at]icann.org -- you guys are
the experts... you know this stuff... and the
registrants really need your help.

Pitch in. Please. Re-direct your energy toward
something productive with long-lasting value. It's
why we're here.

regards,
Danny









____________________________________________________________________________________
Check out the hottest 2008 models today at Yahoo! Autos.
http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html


       
---------------------------------
Shape Yahoo! in your own image.  Join our Network Research Panel today!