Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #238
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST         Wednesday, February 14 2001         Volume 01 : Number 238

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 10:46:29 +0100
From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Call for focus.....

At 08:09 13/02/2001 +0000, Erica Roberts wrote:
>I will be raising the issue of the GA chair at the next meeting of the NC.
>Given that the NC is responsible for the appointment of the GA chair, the
>main issue is the procedural one of how the NC will select the Chair.  Given
>the discussion at the LA meeting, I will be proposing that the NC invite the
>GA to select its candidate for appointment to be ratified by the NC.   So
>long as the GA election proc\ess ensures that the successful candidate has
>broard support from the GA, I expect (speaking personally) that the
>candidate proposed by the GA will be automatically ratified by the NC.

I too expect this. Thanks for confirming!

>Meanwhile, I'd be gateful if someone could clarify for me the proposed
>nomination and election process.

clarifying it is one of the things we need to do too...

- --
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, [email-masked]
+47 41 44 29 94
Personal email: [email-masked]

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 04:17:03 -0600
From: Bruce James <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Call for focus.....

I agree.

Bruce James

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Jonathan Weinberg" <[email-masked]>
To: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2001 9:27 PM
Subject: RE: [ga] Call for focus.....

At 10:05 PM 2/12/2001 +0100, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
>Joop Teernstra wrote:
>>At 10:49 10/02/01 +1100, Dassa wrote:
>> >How about the GA votes for and accepts an interim Chair until such time
as
>>the outside responsible body designs to address the issue.  I think it is
>>high time the GA stood up and let itself be counted.
>> >
>>Agreed.
>>There is no better way to convince the Board to amend the bylaws than by
>>responsibly holding a successful election under our own steam.
>>The WG-review proved that it can be done in 15 days, when the nominating
>>process is web based.
>
>I think consensus is emerging that we should go forward.

         I agree.

Jon Weinberg
[email-masked]

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- ---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.231 / Virus Database: 112 - Release Date: 2/12/2001

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 10:53:06 +1300
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Call for focus.....

At 08:09 13/02/01 +0000, Erica Roberts wrote:

>Meanwhile, I'd be gateful if someone could clarify for me the proposed
>nomination and election process.
>

There is a seconded motion for a proposed nomination process by Joanna
Lane, waiting for consideration by the Chair.

I  support this motion (to follow the same web-based nomination process as
was successfully used for the WG-review.)

- --joop 

The Polling Booth
http://www.democracy.org.nz/vote1/

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 19:02:21 -0700
From: Greg Burton <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Call for focus.....

At 02:53 PM 2/13/01, Joop Teernstra wrote:
>There is a seconded motion for a proposed nomination process by Joanna
>Lane, waiting for consideration by the Chair.

Joop, I can't find that post of Joanna's in the ga list - she made a motion 
in WG-Review, but I don't recall one being made in the GA. Different list, 
eh? In the meantime, there is now less than two weeks til the NC meets, and 
no one seems thrilled or eager to take the job on. I'll defer to Roberto 
and not withdraw my acceptance, but....if I'm the only one willing to chair 
the GA  things are in worse shape than I thought.

  Quite apart from that, given that someone has recently noted what might 
appear to be a bug in the voting booth when someone changes their vote, I 
wouldn't support the use of the voting booth until that's resolved. As 
Harald indicated, there is no reason to not use the procedure the GA has 
already developed - including the rules and method for voting that has 
already been accepted.

Regards,
Greg

[email-masked]

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 02:58:04 -0000
From: "Erica Roberts" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Call for focus.....

Thanks - it would be useful if you could detail the whole election process
(indicating what measures have been taken to ensure the GA nominee for the
GA Chair has broad support), before the next NC so that I can refer to it in
discussion.

Regards,
erica
- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Harald Alvestrand" <[email-masked]>
To: "Erica Roberts" <[email-masked]>; "Roberto Gaetano"
<[email-masked]>; "Greg Burton" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 9:46 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] Call for focus.....

> At 08:09 13/02/2001 +0000, Erica Roberts wrote:
> >I will be raising the issue of the GA chair at the next meeting of the
NC.
> >Given that the NC is responsible for the appointment of the GA chair, the
> >main issue is the procedural one of how the NC will select the Chair.
Given
> >the discussion at the LA meeting, I will be proposing that the NC invite
the
> >GA to select its candidate for appointment to be ratified by the NC.   So
> >long as the GA election proc\ess ensures that the successful candidate
has
> >broard support from the GA, I expect (speaking personally) that the
> >candidate proposed by the GA will be automatically ratified by the NC.
>
> I too expect this. Thanks for confirming!
>
> >Meanwhile, I'd be gateful if someone could clarify for me the proposed
> >nomination and election process.
>
> clarifying it is one of the things we need to do too...
>
> --
> Harald Tveit Alvestrand, [email-masked]
> +47 41 44 29 94
> Personal email: [email-masked]
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
>

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 03:45:51 +0000
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Motions

At this stage I think it would be good if the Chair could tell us what 
motions are pending, seconded, acknowledged and when votes are to occur. I 
had personally one motion seconded, reworded by me in two motions as per 
Chair's suggestion and reworded into one motion maybe seconded by another 
member.
Joop is alluding to another pending motion on Chair nomination.
If I am correct we are expecting also someone to initiate the really 
important motion: the election system to be used for the Chair.
Jefsey

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 04:53:05 +0000
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Call for focus.....

Dear Greg,
On 02:02 14/02/01, Greg Burton said:
>  Quite apart from that, given that someone has recently noted what might 
> appear to be a bug in the voting booth when someone changes their vote, I 
> wouldn't support the use of the voting booth until that's resolved. As 
> Harald indicated, there is no reason to not use the procedure the GA has 
> already developed - including the rules and method for voting that has 
> already been accepted

This is true about the way we vote. But the GA has never voted he way it 
want to elect its Chair. If there is only one nominated can we proceed. If 
there are two, that would be probably OK, but if there are three or more. 
We have a co-Chair today. The tandem Harald-Roberto worked pretty well. 
Would you propose a ticket, two votes, two fist elected?
Jefsey

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 23:23:49 -0500
From: Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Call for focus.....

Greg Burton wrote:

> At 02:53 PM 2/13/01, Joop Teernstra wrote:
> >There is a seconded motion for a proposed nomination process by Joanna
> >Lane, waiting for consideration by the Chair.
>
> Joop, I can't find that post of Joanna's in the ga list - she made a motion
> in WG-Review, but I don't recall one being made in the GA. Different list,
> eh? In the meantime, there is now less than two weeks til the NC meets, and
> no one seems thrilled or eager to take the job on. I'll defer to Roberto
> and not withdraw my acceptance, but....if I'm the only one willing to chair
> the GA  things are in worse shape than I thought.

What about the WG-Review?  We *have* a chair there...  How did we go from
reviewing the DNSO to becoming a part of it?  I'm sorry for asking, but nobody
else seems to have remarked this.  I am wondering just what exactly is going on
here?  Is the WG-Review still on or not, Greg?  Now that I'm on the voting
registry of the GA... to be perfectly honest, at this juncture, I would be loth
to vote for you as Chair of the GA, Greg.  That is, at least until you finish
what you started in WGr.  Or, is that now a defunct project?

Sotiris Sotiropoulos
        Hermes Network, Inc.

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 23:31:03 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Melbourne and nominations

Roberto, Greg and all remaining assembly members,

 What's the matter with you guys, don't you have your own funding to
attend meetings?

Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> Greg,
>
> >
> >The funding for travel to Melbourne that I hoped for has just fallen
> >through, so if attendance is a requirement for the chair, I'll have to
> >withdraw my acceptance of the nomination.
>
> Sorry to hear that the funding has not been granted, but let me suggest to
> keep your acceptance of the nomination, at least until we don't have a
> clearer picture of the timeframes.
>
> It would be interesting though if we could use this chance to discuss the
> issue of funding of the GA Chair (or co-chair) to the ICANN meetings, as we
> cannot assume that the GA physical meetings could run chairless.
> For instance, would it be reasonable to ask funding by the DNSO?
> Of course, this cannot happen for Melbourne, but maybe if we start to
> scratch our heads now it can be done for Stockholm.
>
> Incidentally, to have geographical diversity between chair and co-chair may
> ensure better coverage of geographically diverse meetings ;>)
>
> Regards
> Roberto
>
> _________________________________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 112k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 9236 fwd's to home ph#
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 19:48:56 +1300
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Call for focus.....

>
>Greg Burton wrote:
>
>> At 02:53 PM 2/13/01, Joop Teernstra wrote:
>> >There is a seconded motion for a proposed nomination process by Joanna
>> >Lane, waiting for consideration by the Chair.
>>
>> Joop, I can't find that post of Joanna's in the ga list - she made a motion
>> in WG-Review, but I don't recall one being made in the GA. Different list,
>> eh? 

You are right. It's my filtering system that put it with the GA postings. 
Anyway, it has merit here and I support it because it has the advantage of
automating the tally for nominations in one go on the web. 
It may persuade popular nominees to accept a nomination when they see the
level
of support that they have.
It makes life easier for our current tired Chair and gives us the chance to
get
a new Chair before Melbourne is upon us.

 With due credit to Joanna I repeat the motion here.  Who will second it?

*******motion
In response to the Chair's recommendations, I propose the following motion:-

1. NOMINATION PROCEDURE FOR GA CHAIR

The GA should nominate the candidate for GA Chair as soon as possible.

RECOMMENDATION: To use the same procedures adopted by WG-Review for
election of
its Co-Chair as follows. The names of all current GA Members (approximately
271) will be put up in the polling booth for voting by GA Members. There is no
limit to the number of candidates each member may vote for, but only members
who receive 5 or more votes will go through to a second round. The second
round
will determine the selection of candidate by the Preferential Voting System as
detailed by David Farrar in the Archive at
<http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00725.html>http://www.dnso.
org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00725.html

****end of motion

To simplify the nomination procedure, the Booth could do this without
passwords, but only a rudimentary block against cheating.
The password security could then be put in place at the time of the election.

- --Joop--
Former bootstrap of the CA/idno
provider of The Polling Booth 
www.democracy.org.nz/vote1/

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 08:57:05 +0100
From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Motions

At 03:45 14/02/2001 +0000, Jefsey Morfin wrote:
>At this stage I think it would be good if the Chair could tell us what 
>motions are pending, seconded, acknowledged and when votes are to occur. I 
>had personally one motion seconded, reworded by me in two motions as per 
>Chair's suggestion and reworded into one motion maybe seconded by another 
>member.

Since the GA does not have procedures on what a motion is, how it needs to 
be proposed, whether it needs to be seconded and so on, I think this is 
quite hard to answer.

At the moment, there are 27 messages in my personal GA archive containing 
the word "seconded".

I think we do need to set up that procedures subgroup; I have heard no 
response to my comments on the proposed Roberts' modifications from a while 
ago; I guess it was lost in the noise.

>Joop is alluding to another pending motion on Chair nomination.
>If I am correct we are expecting also someone to initiate the really 
>important motion: the election system to be used for the Chair.
>Jefsey
>
>--
>This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
>Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- --
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, [email-masked]
+47 41 44 29 94
Personal email: [email-masked]

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 21:01:26 +1100
From: "Dassa" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Call for focus.....

In the interest of getting an interim Chair into place and as this appears to be the best proposal so far, I second this motion.

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.

|>-----Original Message-----
|>From: [email-masked] 
|>[mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
|>Joop Teernstra
|>Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2001 5:49 PM
|>To: Greg Burton
|>Cc: [email-masked]
|>Subject: Re: [ga] Call for focus.....
|>
|>
|>
|>>
|>>Greg Burton wrote:
|>>
|>>> At 02:53 PM 2/13/01, Joop Teernstra wrote:
|>>> >There is a seconded motion for a proposed nomination 
|>process by Joanna
|>>> >Lane, waiting for consideration by the Chair.
|>>>
|>>> Joop, I can't find that post of Joanna's in the ga list - 
|>she made a motion
|>>> in WG-Review, but I don't recall one being made in the GA. 
|>Different list,
|>>> eh? 
|>
|>You are right. It's my filtering system that put it with the 
|>GA postings. 
|>Anyway, it has merit here and I support it because it has the 
|>advantage of
|>automating the tally for nominations in one go on the web. 
|>It may persuade popular nominees to accept a nomination when 
|>they see the
|>level
|>of support that they have.
|>It makes life easier for our current tired Chair and gives us 
|>the chance to
|>get
|>a new Chair before Melbourne is upon us.
|>
|> With due credit to Joanna I repeat the motion here.  Who 
|>will second it?
|>
|>*******motion
|>In response to the Chair's recommendations, I propose the 
|>following motion:-
|>
|>1. NOMINATION PROCEDURE FOR GA CHAIR
|>
|>The GA should nominate the candidate for GA Chair as soon as possible.
|>
|>RECOMMENDATION: To use the same procedures adopted by WG-Review for
|>election of
|>its Co-Chair as follows. The names of all current GA Members 
|>(approximately
|>271) will be put up in the polling booth for voting by GA 
|>Members. There is no
|>limit to the number of candidates each member may vote for, 
|>but only members
|>who receive 5 or more votes will go through to a second 
|>round. The second
|>round
|>will determine the selection of candidate by the Preferential 
|>Voting System as
|>detailed by David Farrar in the Archive at
|><http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00725.html>htt
|>p://www.dnso.
|>org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00725.html
|>
|>****end of motion
|>
|>To simplify the nomination procedure, the Booth could do this without
|>passwords, but only a rudimentary block against cheating.
|>The password security could then be put in place at the time 
|>of the election.
|>
|>
|>--Joop--
|>Former bootstrap of the CA/idno
|>provider of The Polling Booth 
|>www.democracy.org.nz/vote1/
|>
|>--
|>This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
|>Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
|>("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
|>Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
|>
|>
|>

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #238
************************