RE: [ICANN-EU] About Nom-Com issue and 'reconsideration' petition

[R.Gaetano@iaea.org]

Giorgio,

There are 71 candidates, 2% each means... 140% ;>)

Please bear in mind that we do not know what will be the exact number of
validated members on the 31 August.
Also, most of the people joined to vote for the "real" ballot, and probably
(given also the short time and the vacation period) are not even paying a
lot of attention to this phase.

Maybe our first objective should be to get the media's attention to this
phase, and to provide reasons for the importance of having participation so
that at least some few pass the 2% cap.
Whoever of us gets into the ballot will have more "weight" the more voters
the process has had.

To Andreas I would say that to disperse forces in trying to get an
(improbable) reconsideration on the matter is lowering the chances of
getting achieved the objective I outlined before.
I am not happy, as I said in a previous message, with the sudden change of
the Yokohama orientation on the ratio "membership" vs. "NomCom" nominatated
candidates. But this is a matter that can be discussed later (because a
decision has been, alas, taken), and the only way to revert the situation is
to have the Membership endorse the membership-nominated candidates (and
eventually have one of these elected in October).

Regards
Roberto
 



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Griffini Giorgio [mailto:grigio@mediapoint.it]
> Sent: Wednesday, 16 August 2000 13:03
> To: Andreas F|gner
> Cc: icann-europe@fitug.de
> Subject: Re: [ICANN-EU] About Nom-Com issue and 'reconsideration'
> petition
> 
> 
> You wrote:
> > Dear Griffini:
> > 
> > Sorry, to correct you, but Andrew is wrong.
> > The decision was made to put nom-com candidates "in front of the
> > At-Large-Members".
> > It doesn't say that they are to be put on "the ballot" as 
> Andrew says!
> >
> > This might seem just a small difference. But that is 
> exactly the point of
> > our discussion here.
> >
> 
> Hello,
> I think is difficult to give a different meaning to 
> resolution 00.68 of the Board 
> as shown on preliminary report of Yokohama especially if you 
> read point 8.
> Howewer, (supposed we really like to do tricky legal things 
> on rules) we can 
> try to bring any number of candidates into the final ballot 
> by distributing 
> endorsements in way they all are over the thresold and in tie. 
> It is difficult but not so impossible  :-)
> 
> Best Regards
> Giorgio Griffini
>