[atlarge-discuss] Limited mandate for interim panel

["James Love" <james.love@cptech.org>]

I hope we can organize a new election for the at large steering committee
(or whatever it will be called), earlier rather than later.  I have
suggested in the panel discussions beginning the new election process in
early June.  While I was quite happy with the first panel, I think for the
first round many persons did not run because it was such a limited mandate,
and I think it will be a mistake for us (the interim panel) to be too bold
in terms of policy making, and leave most of that for the next group.  I
don't mind if anyone on the current panel runs for a seat on the new panel,
but we have to replace ourselves in a new election fairly soon.

That said, it seems as though there needs to be some sense of what we
electing.  Are we going to hold an election of people we want on the ICANN
board?    Are we electing people to negotiate with the ICANN board for
seats?   Are we electing people who mostly act like a GA by committee, with
no real power, but perhaps a different idea of how to formulate
recommendations?   Where is this going?

Jamie

--------------------------------
James Love mailto:james.love@cptech.org
http://www.cptech.org +1.202.387.8030 mobile +1.202.361.3040



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de