Re: [ga] Webcast of Today's NC Meeting

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Dear Rick,
You may be right.

But the use of the PSTN is costly to the candidates and not really 
efficient. Also, the IETF takes decision on programs or concepts everyone 
may visualize on his computer. The NC has to take decisions over human 
beings, some they know f2f,  some of them they do not know f2f.

So actually meeting the candidate is a working cession and should be 
considered as such. The point is not to know who is the better, but what 
actually they have to contribute with. IMHO the problem of the ICANN is 
that many believe the matter is the ICANN, while IMHO the matter is what 
the ICANN can contribute with. So an election is a review time where people 
may dig into new concepts, understand better problems, etc.. because new 
faces explain them in new ways.

IMHO preparing an election is the real work. Afterward orientations are 
committed: innovation and review is provided for free by candidates. I do 
not consider myself as a could-be-Director, I consider that NC and BoD 
people should be educated on some points. I am only interested on these 
points coming across and being addressed. I frankly do not care who will 
address them as far as they are well addressed.

And I am not interested in being elected to address them if I cannot do a 
better job from inside. That is something I also need to evaluate. An 
election is thee way: voters chose a candidate, candidate chose to 
represent the voters, candidate may dialog and reach consensuses. We are 
not fighting, we try together to find the best way to improve the ICANN and 
better serve the Internet Commuity.

Cheers. Jefsey



n 18:42 17/08/01, Rick H Wesson said:
>Danny,
>
>I would encourage the NC not to fund travel to F2F meetings for anyone,
>even if you happen to be one that benefits from such this time around.
>
>With 4 meetings a year, 3 of which cost in the thousands for most to
>attend, I suggest that the NC and other Constituencies focus on having
>decisions made on the mailing lists and teleconferences.
>
>The IETF has a long history, like 20 years, of not making decisions at F2F
>meetings. Instead, all decisions are made via mailing lists and phone
>conferences. The F2F meetings are for doing work, not decision making.
>
>It will be increasingly difficult to justify who gets travel expenses and
>who does not; all the while increasing the operating costs of the DNSO
>which is something we need to keep at a minimum.
>
>We need to encourage everyone to use the facilities of the Internet and
>PSTN to allow everyone a voice, not just those that attend the F2F
>meetings.
>
>best regards,
>
>-rick
>
>Rick Wesson
>CTO Registrars Constituency
>
>On Fri, 17 Aug 2001, Joanna Lane wrote:
>
> > Dear Peter,
> >
> > During the NC's extensive deliberations yesterday on the Board Director
> > election, you, as a representative of the ccTLD Constituency, set the
> > criteria that any candidate running for this job should who be willing to
> > attend Montevideo and meet with the Constituencies face to face. As a 
> direct
> > result of your astute arguments, the first round of vote cast on the
> > election was deferred until Saturday 8th September, decided by a clear
> > majority of the NC. If I understand you correctly, you then indicated that
> > if the reason for non-attendance was financial, then transportation 
> could be
> > provided for candidates, but that a willingness to attend was 
> essential. Let
> > me make a clear statement that I am willing to attend.
> >
> > Notwithstanding the fact that I have not received any invitations to
> > participate in any Constituency meetings in Montevideo, I am eager to 
> do so,
> > and more than happy to make the effort to comply with your requirement of
> > me. I do fully appreciate your concerns, and understand the particular
> > difficulties of using written questions, or teleconferences when liaising
> > with a diverse and multi-lingual membership. Prior to your statement, I saw
> > good, but not vital, reasons for my attendance. Subsequent to your 
> statement
> > and the supporting vote of other NC members, it is obvious that any
> > candidate who does not attend will lose this election.
> >
> > While not wishing to add to your burdens, and in order to not unfairly
> > disadvantage any of my fellow candidates, I am therefore requesting 
> that you
> > make whatever ground, air and lodging arrangements may be necessary for all
> > of us to attend Montevideo.
> >
> > My own position is this. I have family visiting from Europe until the 4th,
> > but could leave on the 5th/6th, which would allow me to attend the ccTLD
> > constituency meeting on the 7th at 2pm, or at your members convenience,
> > another time.
> >
> > Regarding other Constituencies, at the time of writing, I have participated
> > in a 90 minute teleconference with the IPC, and submitted responses to
> > written questions posed off-list by the gTLD. I can only assume that any
> > other constituency requirements will be forthcoming, including the BC, from
> > whom I have not yet heard.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Joanna
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> > Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >
>
>--
>This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
>Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html