[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [atlarge-discuss] Re: [atlarge-panel] elections

> Our representatives in ALAC really MUST be subordinate to the main elected
> executive of our organisation.
> Richard Henderson

I sense that the new Panel would be more stable it were greater in number,
closer to the 15 that ICANN proposes. The 7 members of the interim panel
have proved insufficient in number to get things done expediently, and one
cannot rely on every member being available 100% of the time at the whim of

What I meant by "A slight flexibility/redundancy built in to the election
process" is an election that would produce, from the
outset, not only a united Executive, but also sufficient numbers of
individuals with a mandate to "represent and speak for the membership", that
could then, without having to call a further election, appoint a subset from
amongst themselves, or delegate each other as representatives on ICANN and
non-ICANN related issues, who could provide the "inside ICANN Committee" and
the "outside ICANN Committee".

I sense that it would be sensible to mirror ICANN's Blueprint of a 15 person
BoD. Put another way, fight them by their own rules, like with like. We
certainly don't need another election in 30 days time to replace those who
may resign for one reason or another, or to appoint an AtLarge.com
representative to the latest GNSO Task Force on dot.org, or Marilyn's
Transfers Task Force or whatever.


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