Re: [gnso-osc-ops] possible issue with elections

[Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Avri,

As you know, that was an anticipated outcome of the Contracted 
(pro-Chuck, or more generally, RyC-or-RC-manditory-Chair-or-VC) vs 
Non-Contracted (pro-Olga, and possible anti-see-above) House vote whip 
activity on Saturday. I observed one side, you the other.
Is no-chair, and therefore two-equi-co-chairs a bad outcome?

I don't think so.

Is a really bad chair (or co-chair) a really bad outcome?

The candidature of Mike Rodenbaugh made process failure a real 
possibility.
We've managed to pass the opportunity to observe what happens if one 
house views the other house plus chair as a single, adverse interest 
group, though we've a taste of that in the selection of a single 
Contracted Party House member in the IRT, similar to the narrowest of 
unicameral majorities, and the more I think about it the better two 
co-equal co-chairs appears.
The process failure to avoid as an election outcome is the end of the 
GNSO Council as a body, whether legislative (old) or administrative 
(new), in which gTLD stakeholders can find common interest.
I guess I'm more concerned about party tyranny, that is, the adverse 
outcome of a majority for a leadership candidate, than accommodation 
to equity within the leadership, the outcome of no majority for a 
leadership candidate. I know we missed it this time, I simply don't 
want us to make it mandatory to miss every time hereafter.
Eric