Re: [ga] At Large Board Seat
- To: karl@xxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [ga] At Large Board Seat
- From: Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 13:27:51 -0700 (PDT)
Re: "I have been disappointed, but unfortunately, not surprised, to see
Karl, at last week's NARALO session I asked for, and obtained, an upcoming
teleconference scheduled for next Monday at 19:00 UTC (12:00 p.m. PDT/3 p.m.
EDT) that will be devoted exclusively to the topic.
It will be a brainstorming session that will hopefully lead to a process by
which an at-large director may be appointed.
A have quite a few thoughts as to what might be a suitable process, and am
hoping that recourse to some of the processes used in the earlier global
elections may reveal a good way forward.
Examples would include (1) utilizing the services of election.com once more to
aid in an at-large voter registration process; (2) the used of a multi-phase
approach; (3) the use of preferential voting mechanisms (4) nominations by both
a nominating committee and by member-nomination, etc.
--- On Wed, 9/16/09, Karl Auerbach <karl@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> From: Karl Auerbach <karl@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [ga] At Large Board Seat
> To: "Danny Younger" <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: "GA" <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Wednesday, September 16, 2009, 3:52 PM
> On 09/15/2009 08:09 PM, Danny Younger
> > here are the relevant Board meeting minutes:
> > b.Voting Director Appointed from the At Large
> > The Board received an update from Staff regarding the
> Board review
> > Working Group recommendation for the inclusion of a
> voting director
> > appointed from the At Large. The Board discussed some
> > implementation hurdles that must be resolved, though
> recognized that
> > approving of the recommendation in principle would
> then allow for the
> > planning of the implementation.
> Which is slightly at odds with the fact that we (the
> "Working Group") recommended *two* voting seats not a
> singular "a voting director".
> Although I don't remember the exact words we used, our
> intent was that the "at large" mean the broad community of
> internet users, not merely the ALAC, and that the mechanism
> of choice be something in which the members of that larger
> community have have, in some cumulative way yet to be
> designed, to pick and choose the people to be seated.
> In my own mind it seems to me that we opened the door to
> the ALAC to make a definite and detailed proposal of how
> that may work. I have been disappointed, but
> unfortunately, not surprised, to see nothing. In this
> absence "staff" has been handed a blank sheet of paper on
> which it can expand in any and all directions.
> The ALAC still has time, but not much time, to draw some
> faint containment lines on that sheet.
> In our working group I felt that this issue needed a
> broader field, that the question of publicly seated
> directors needed to address, or to my mind "redress", the
> nominating committee system, the question whether the
> President should have an automatic voting seat on the board
> (I've always felt that that was a very wrong choice),
> elimination of the misconceived ombudsman, a requirement to
> re-enact (or not) decisions of the past (such as the UDRP)
> so that the public directors can finally have a voice in the
> decision, etc.