RE: [ga] Additional Questions for our Board Candidates

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Dear Marilyn,
I think I correctly interpreted you remark, but with a different culture.
In my European culture this kind of lobbying you describe does not exist.
Or not yet. For us it is anti-democratic by confusion. We do not campaign
once votes have stared. I accept your culture, I am sure you will
understand  mine.

On 13:25 10/08/01, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA said:
> Jefsey,
> You misterpreted my email
> as  you wished to. Read it again. :-) It suggested a few days into
> the endorsement period before pressuring the candiates for
> statement.  I did not suggest what you interpreted... into my
> statement. Happy to clarify it here, again.

You have to understand that several people have already endorsed one or
several candidates and went into vacations considering their job
done.They agree on key points they discussed for some weeks or months and
they trust the candidates to explains others. This is no more lobby but
voting period.

We use to think that the duration of the endorsment period is to permit
Members to make their decision. Not to build any support league. That
should have been done before, based upon serious work and common
analysis. Discussing matters during an open vote is for us illegal: I am
ready to adapt to the current ICANN system and to respond to question of
hesitants information, but I find this shocking. The only alibi I find is
that it permits to work together on some ignored topics. 

Hence my approbation of your your request for what I took for a recess
demand.

> The
> Endorsement period is for the candidates to build an endorsement list
> which is useful to those who don't know the candidate.

This is totally foreign to my democatic deecision culture. I do respect
the NC Members enough to believe they are independent sophisticated
minded people who take their decisions by themselves in discussing with
the candidates or with serious people used to work with them for a long
and sharing their view; rather that to be influenced by the pressures or
enthusiam of accidental afficionados.

I discover here another odd meaning of the word "constiuency",
a word which should IMHO definitly be removed from the ICANN language as
too much culturally differently rooted.

> I'm
> studying each of the posted statements as I am sure that GA members are
> doing as well.  Giving a few days from the start of the endorsement
> period before expecting to see statements seems a useful approach.

I probably totally musinderstand your words here: I am lost.  How
may people study statements before they may be expecting to see
statements? Are there the same statements?

>  I
> see no need for a further extended period as you describe.

I do not speak of a extended period. 

I request the agenda to be set-up accordint to the bylaws for a serene,
efficient and fair decision and not to be rushed among many other things
before a long trip and an important meeting. I prefer the Montevideo
meeting not to be hampered by the aftermath of the BoD elections. I favor
a the DNSO representation not to be bothered by the simultaneous presence
of a current and of a monkey Director.

I just want to add a word. The issue is not the person to be elected. The
issue is the image of the DNSO and the capacity of the DNSO Director
elect to act. With different skills, orientations, priorities every
candidate would probably be a good Director. 

The point is that he could be a DNSO supported Director, both by the GA
and the NC. Today if we were taking a poll of this GA asking Members who
are the three DNSO Directors, I would be surprised many would know. This
explains a lot about the DNSO position within the ICANN and about the
ICANN capacities and image. No one wants to repeat last year GA shock.

I do not favor any candidate. I favor a candidate by NC consensus to GA
satisfaction. I believe it is possible and I believe it would be the best
turn to the DNSO, to the NC and to the GA.  For that we need three
candidates out of five to be known by the GA and three other candidates
out of five to be known by the NC. 

Jefsey

 

-----Original Message-----

From: Jefsey Morfin [mailto:jefsey@wanadoo.fr]

Sent: Friday, August 10, 2001 5:49 AM

To: ga@dnso.org

Subject: RE: [ga] Additional Questions for our Board Candidates

Dear Marilyn,

I full agree with you there: we should have a break ! :-)

The election schedule is oddly made since there is no debate before decisions. There is no delay between the nomination and endorsement period and no clearly defined delay between endorsment period and election date.

You are right, there should be a one or two week delay between the end of the acceptance period  and the begining of the endorsments, for people to get familiar with every candidate. If I observe this election: three candidates have only posted once or twice on the GA this year. Three others are unknown face to face to quite every NC Members.

We will probably agree on studying the two solutions:

- a delay between the end of a phase and the begining of the next phase as you suggest.

- the endorsment period is to end as this year before a quarterly meeting and the NC vote to be taken after that meeting. This to give an opportunity for the NC Members to equally meet or better know every candidate, to avoid any election/result related diversion during the meeting and to take a serene vote after each Member had time to quietely consider his options during his flight back.

Thank you for this pragmatic and common sense suggestion.

Jefsey

On 05:57 10/08/01, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA said:

Danny, could I ask that we slow down just a bit and allow the endorsement period to get started before demanding responses. I am sure that the candidates will be responsive to an organized approach to consult with the constituencies and GA.

 

However, I note that the nomination phase just closed, and we are now in endorsement phase. Perhaps we could let that play out a few days since that will be a useful exercise in and of itself.

 

I understand that some may feel that they need to ask questions before endorsing, of course, so I am merely suggesting that we, the  GA, give it a few days before appearing to set deadlines, or appear critical of the candidates for not responding immediately.

 

Marilyn

-----Original Message-----

From: DannyYounger@cs.com [mailto:DannyYounger@cs.com]

Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2001 11:24 PM

To: ga@dnso.org

Cc: ejonvel@ej.net; Paul.Kane@reacto.com; jefsey@wanadoo.fr; jo-uk@rcn.com; Amadeu@nominalia.com

Subject: [ga] Additional Questions for our Board Candidates

It's time that we started hearing from our Board candidates.   If they intend

to represent the DNSO, they should, at the very least, be responsive to the

GA.  We have already submitted four questions to our Board candidates; here

are some more... let's hope we get a few more replies...

1.   What are your thoughts regarding the decision of the ccTLD Constituency

to withdraw from the DNSO?

2.   Board Resolution 01.28 asked for proposals that may result in changes in

the structure of the DNSO and/or major changes in its functioning.  What

proposals would you put forth?

3.   What is your position on current registrar transfer policies?

4.   What changes would you propose with respect to the UDRP?

5.   Do you support suspending the voting rights of financially delinquent

constituencies?

6.   Small Business Owners account for perhaps 70% of all domain

registrations yet this set of stakeholders does not appear to be

well-represented in the ICANN process; how would you address this issue?

7.   The At-Large Study Committee was given a budget of $450,000 in order to

accomplish outreach and generate recommendations; the DNSO is similarly an

internal working committee of ICANN that engages in outreach and generates

recommendations, but it has never been given any financial support by ICANN.  

Do you believe that the DNSO should continue to be self-funding?

8.   How would you evaluate the current TLD rollout?

9.   What comments would you make regarding ICP-3?

10.  It is now going on nine months since the new TLDs were selected and yet

several registry contracts still remain to be signed; in view of the public's

growing demand for new TLDs, how would you address this issue?

11.  As new TLDs are launched, the prospect of collisions in namespace grows;

how do you propose to solve this problem?

12.  What is your position with respect to the future of .org?

13.  What is your position regarding the sale of Bulk WHOIS data?

14.  Is seven days sufficient time to review a registry contract?

15.  When would you begin the next round of TLD selections?