ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[ga]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [ga] Vote on representation first

  • To: "Joop Teernstra" <terastra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Hugh Dierker" <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [ga] Vote on representation first
  • From: "Dominik Filipp" <dominik.filipp@xxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 16:10:46 +0100
  • Cc: "ga" <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Sender: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Thread-index: AcdA9YPC/jiJbqXoSu2j9zcI2R0bqgAWZcjg
  • Thread-topic: [ga] Vote on representation first

I would prefer having a chair and a co-chair too, and wouldn't go into
the personal nomination election for now either.

As for the competence of the future GA chair & co-chair representatives,
the voting results over issues should be mandatory for the
representatives and as such delegated to the outside world. The
representatives, thanks to the natural credibility given by the voting
public they represent, could therefore gain more respect from the ICANN
representatives.

I, personally, would start with clarifying the chair (co-chair)
responsibilities and the subsequent voting on this. In the meantime, we
could start considering the personal nominations.

By the way, Joop, I like the overall web site look'n'feel, nicely
done...

Dominik
 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Joop Teernstra
Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 3:11 AM
To: Hugh Dierker
Cc: ga
Subject: Re: [ga] Vote on representation first

At 12:42 p.m. 26/01/2007, Hugh Dierker wrote:
>I propose that;
>
>First we vote to determine if we want elected representatives from the 
>GA to the outside world?
>
>If we get a no vote on that we fold up the tents and go on down the
road.
>
>If we get a yes, we argue for awhile and come up with the structure we 
>want to vote on and the authority of the representatives.
>
>It seems to me to require a two step process so we don't get bogged 
>down before we even agree to have representatives.
>

Personally, I would vote Other and ask for a simultaneous chair and a
co-chair election.

We have all 5 days to argue and persuade our 21 voters what would be the
best way to use this first ballot. :-)  Fun.

Personally I think voting for a representative now is a bad idea; we
don't yet know what we want it to mean. A representative of all the GA
list subscribers? The physical attendees? Only of us, the 21 first
voters? Of the typical individual DNS users? Etc.

That would have to be polled first. The Chair could decide that poll's
options.

Without a chair (and a back-up chair) we will keep floundering.


-joop-




<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>