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-
-