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

[Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>]

Well reasoned and persuasive. I almost changed my mind. When voting it made no difference to me but I had to wonder where the concept of "neutral" came from.
   
  Eric

Dominik Filipp <dominik.filipp@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
  One person for helping organize and lead debate within the GA is ok.
However, in the future the same person could also represent us offlist.
I wouldn't that strictly narrow his/her job, though another person for
the representation is (very) likely. We'll see. Maybe the need for
electing such another person will come up soon.

Anyway, after having thought it over recently, I agree with Chris in
that we could start with one person doing the internal work within the
GA. After a certain period and after identifying/evaluating the existing
status we can decide how to proceed further. The roles of both chairs
are still hazy; ok, maybe the internal jobsheet is more or less clear.
But we still need more time for a broader discussion over this.

I wouldn't see the position of non-dual chairs that problematic (in
terms of capturing the leading position), as long as the chairs' actions
are bound by voting results that only give the delegating credibility.
As we are all adults everyone is capable of speaking and making
decisions for him/herself.
Later on, we'll definitely need at least a short charter adjusting and
justifying the rights & resps of the chairs.

Having one chair elected, let's say, for a period of half a year is, I
guess, a good point to start with.

Dominik

________________________________

From: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of kidsearch
Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 3:15 PM
To: Hugh Dierker; Joop Teernstra; ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ga] Let us try consensus/next vote?

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 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.


 
---------------------------------
Be a PS3 game guru.
Get your game face on with the latest PS3 news and previews at Yahoo! Games.