Jay Fenello wrote:
>
> According to a recent Wired article:
> http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,34891,00.html
> the folks at Common Cause seem happy,
> and the CDT people seem cautious.
See http://www.cdt.org/. It looks like CDT isn't going to blow the
whistle on the Nominating Commi
At 02:18 PM 3/12/00 , Michael Sondow wrote:
>Ellen Rony wrote:
> >
> > Where are the checks and balances in the ICANN @Large nominating plan? An
> > ICANN board can appoint a Nominating Committee that has a particular agenda
> > or perspective and may screen out candidates who do not fit the desi
very perceptive observation Ellen and quite right.
On Sun, 12 Mar 2000, Ellen Rony wrote:
> I currently serve as chair the Nominating Committee for the Environmental
> Forum of Marin, a 27 year-old organization. In our situation, the
> Nominating Committee wields enormous power because it scree
Ellen and all,
I agree that the ICANN @Large seems to be a very weak process.
This is of course indicative of the ICANN board. It has been very weak
on process, thus producing very poor substance in many instances. The
UDRP and the "Accreditation Policy" is just two past examples.
Nominees
Ellen Rony wrote:
>
> Where are the checks and balances in the ICANN @Large nominating plan? An
> ICANN board can appoint a Nominating Committee that has a particular agenda
> or perspective and may screen out candidates who do not fit the desired
> mold.
That is obviously exactly what they int
I currently serve as chair the Nominating Committee for the Environmental
Forum of Marin, a 27 year-old organization. In our situation, the
Nominating Committee wields enormous power because it screens potential
candidates and presents a proposed slate to the Board of Directors which is
then appr
