Re: [ga] Vote

[Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>]

I hate to be a pain but sometimes wording means something. You cannot have a chair and a co-chair, perhaps the word being looked for is vice chair. Co denotes and equal cooperation in which case the would both be co-chairs. Vice indicates an order of succession and power, vice being secondary to the prime.
   
  Representative is and adjective indicating someone who goes out on behalf of other(s). Obviously a chairman of a group is a representative of that group. It would only be up to that group to set forth the degree of representativeness in general or specific.
   
  The aforementioned illustrates the need to not take these matters off list and to handle them in a consensus manner prior to voting. The voting booth was a one nonelected man endeavor which was nice of him to do but only proved the impropriety of doing it that way. Let us do the continuing work to be done here. The fact that people signed up but did not vote is even more reason to do it here.
   
  Eric

Joop Teernstra <terastra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
  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.
>



I concur that it is now time to discuss the next step here.


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


One Feb 2,. we had 11 votes

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.


>
>Next Item
>
>Debate as to the first elected person(s) from here.
>My vote is for an equal co-chair position that will run things here and be 
>sent by us to represent us elsewhere.

I would support that.

>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-


 
---------------------------------
Sucker-punch spam with award-winning protection.
 Try the free Yahoo! Mail Beta.