[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ga] [fwd] Nominating Committee & at-large (from: roessler@does-not-exist.org)
On Thu, 6 Jun 2002 17:27:58 +0200, Thomas Roessler
<roessler@does-not-exist.org> wrote:
>If I'm strongly mistaken about what you folks think, please speak up
>now, so I can send a correction to the council. ;-)
Looks fine to me. I think it is crucial that we try to get ICANN to
front up on what the composition of the nominating/selection committee
will be, because I suspect they are going to try and get everyone to
agree to the notion in principle and then once that happens come out
with a composition which will not be particularly diverse and ram it
through as a minor detail.
DPF
>
>
>
>
>
>----- Forwarded message from Thomas Roessler <roessler@does-not-exist.org> -----
>
>From: Thomas Roessler <roessler@does-not-exist.org>
>To: council@dnso.org
>Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 17:27:12 +0200
>Subject: Nominating Committee & at-large
>Mail-Followup-To: council@dnso.org
>
>I may have not been as clear as I should be in one of my statements
>during today's call, concerning the relationship between a
>nominating committee and an at-large membership, so let me try to
>clarify this a bit more.
>
>1. It is safe to assume that most of the GA's members (certainly
>most of its active ones) would clearly favor direct at-large
>elections over any nominating (or rather: selection) committee
>approach.
>
>2. Since that doesn't seem to be feasible at this point of time,
>reserving a number of board seats for an at-large membership, and
>having the selection committeee fill these seats as a stop-gap
>measure, is certainly preferable over assigning these seats to a
>selection committee for all future, effectively eliminating even the
>notion of an at-large membership.
>
>3. In order to make such an arrangement more than just a
>lip-service, the reservation of board seats for an at-large
>membership would have to have some teeth - for instance, a bylaws
>provision which mandates at-large elections at a well-defined point
>of time in the future, provided certain factual conditions are
>fulfilled. Bad enough, it seems unlikely to me that the current
>board would even consider such a change.
>
>4. Maybe having some kind of open election for some (or even all?
>;-) members of the selection committee may be the way to go for at
>least some at-large membership representation within the structure
>currently proposed.
>
>--
>Thomas Roessler http://log.does-not-exist.org/
>
>----- End forwarded message -----
--
david@farrar.com
ICQ 29964527
--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html