Re: [ga] Let us try consensus/next vote?

["kidsearch" <kidsearch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

It will likely have to be a vote. I'll make my own opinion known. I think one chair that does not represent us offlist is needed. This person's job is strictly to help organize debate and working groups on different topics. They would not represent us to ICANN or anywhere else. I think after we elect that person, we can all discuss and form a consensus about what type of representation we want to have off this list, to ICANN, to the Internet At large. I do not think we are ready to elect anyone to represent us at this time. I do not think that role has been created or discussed properly at this time.

Chris McElroy aka NameCritic
http://www.articlecontentprovider.com

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Hugh Dierker 
  To: Joop Teernstra ; ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 9:56 PM
  Subject: Re: [ga] Let us try consensus/next vote?


  The contrary issue is Capture.

  I recommend all matters remain of list, so that someone in control of another space/booth/list does not capture and engage in unilateral predestined conclusionary tactics.

  I recomment the dual chair role so one group does not capture the lead position of the GA but rather there is balance.

  I suggest consensus if possible so that logic and best arguments prevail over capture and personality.

  A show of hands is perfectly valid for what is after all a general assembly.  It is the yeses and nos that are important not the actual definatve cast iron vote. Also it would lend a hand for leaders to know minority positions which may be more important than majority views.

  Eric

  Joop Teernstra <terastra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
    At 04:34 a.m. 8/02/2007, hdierker wrote:
    >I suggest we just call for a show of hands as to what people want to elect 
    >a person(s) for.
    >

    Eric,

    That is not a reliable or efficient method on a mailing list.
    If you wait one more day, I will put the available options on the Booth and 
    in 6 days we will all know the answer without clogging up the GA list.


    >I obviously am for the co-chairs with a 6 month term and they will also be 
    >representatives when directed to be, with their mandate to organize us 
    >more fully and draw up some operating rules.

    I believe 2 equal chairs operating at the same time on a mailing list is a 
    recipe for strife and confusion.

    Why not simply elect the most preferred candidate as chair and the runner 
    up as vice chair and back-up?
    At least that way we create some continuity in the effort to organize the 
    unrepresented.

    >
    >This is my position. However I might be moved to a different position and 
    >will certainly support other concepts if support is shown for them.
    >
    Thanks.





------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Don't be flakey. Get Yahoo! Mail for Mobile and 
  always stay connected to friends.