Re: [ga] At Large Board Seat

[Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>]

Danny,
 
I hope that you are right.  But I do not think that, based upon passed actions, 
that groups like the IGF and the NCUC want individuals going all crazy and 
voiting outside of their special groups. This causes many problems, not the 
least of which is funding from donations.

--- On Wed, 9/16/09, Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:


From: Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [ga] At Large Board Seat
To: karl@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: "GA" <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wednesday, September 16, 2009, 1:27 PM



Re:  "I have been disappointed, but unfortunately, not surprised, to see 
nothing."

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
> wrote:
> 
> > 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
> potential
> > 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.
> 
>         --karl--
> 
>