[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [atlarge-discuss] Limited mandate for interim panel
- To: "James Love" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] Limited mandate for interim panel
- From: Joop Teernstra <email@example.com>
- Date: Mon, 06 May 2002 13:09:44 +1200
- Cc: "atlarge discuss list" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Delivered-To: mailing list email@example.com
- In-Reply-To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- List-Help: <mailto:email@example.com>
- List-Post: <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>
- List-Subscribe: <mailto:email@example.com>
- List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Mailing-List: contact email@example.com; run by ezmlm
At 04:40 p.m. 5/05/2002 -0400, James Love wrote:
>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.
Jamie and all,
The time for the next election is set. (27 July)
The members need to be on guard that nobody on the first interim Panel gets
in a position of absolute control over Policy setting and that
decisionmaking is joint at all times.
That said, I quite agree with Jamie that too bold policymaking, even
jointly, could break what tenuously ties us together now.
>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.
Care needs to be taken that new election rules do not in any way favour
self-perpetuation of any kind.
>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?
These are all good questions that need to be discussed as early as possible.
The most important part of the current mandate is to pave the way for the
unquestioned election of the most suitable team to lead the At large for
the longer term.
Any one on the team should be qualified to occupy an ICANN Board seat if
and when that time comes.
--Joop Teernstra LL.M.--
Sign up and spread the word.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
For additional commands, e-mail: email@example.com