Re: SUMMARY: publish list of nominees?

[Geoff Huston <gih@telstra.net>]

>   But at this point, it's *very* late
> in the process, and by the time the slate is submitted to the
> confirming body, the selected candidates know this fact, since it's at
> this point that we ask them for permission from their management.  So
> between the time factor, and the embarassment factor of telling the
> selected candidate, "oops, sorry, we changed our minds", by the time
> it gets to the confirming body level, it really is very, very, very
> difficult to make a change --- even in a case where nomcom were to
> find out some significant new information which might have changed the
> outcome if they had known it earlier in the process.

So what you are saying here, and maybe this is not what you intended to 
assert, is that even if a confirming body fails to confirm a nominated 
candidate, you are of the view that the Nomcom is already locked into that 
particular decision and cannot (or is likely not to) alter its outcome. If 
this is the case then the confirmation system is extraneous and we can do 
without it as it will have no material impact on the outcome. If, on the 
other hand, the confirming body believes that it does have the ability to 
question and review the Nomcom's nomination, and that the confiirming body 
can choose to reject a nomination, then I'm not clear why the rest of your 
argument follows.

(If it isn't obvious, I'm of the view that the confirming bodies are in the 
process for a good purpose, and a rejection of a nomination by a confirming 
body should compel the Nomcom to  review its own process of consultation 
and understand why it had reached a different conclusion than the 
confirming body, and then work to reconcile the differing perspectives 
between the nomcom and the confirming body)

Geoff