Re: [ga] FW: ICANN meeting in Montevideo

[Joanna Lane <jo-uk@rcn.com>]

on 8/22/01 12:57 PM, Derek Conant at dconant@dnsga.org wrote:

> Was it appropriate to solicit funding on behalf of the DNSO GA without
> formal authorization or permission from the DNSO or ICANN?


I have never professed to speak for DNSO GA and do not now, neither have I
solicited funds on behalf of the DNSO GA from anybody.

There are a lot of generalizations being bandied about in this discussion
about funding of Board candidates for Montevideo. Some of these are missing
the salient points.

What is being overlooked is that on this particular occasion, the election
of a Board Director coincides with a physical meeting of those judging the
merits of the candidates. That is an unusual situation. None of those
participating in this vote have themselves been subjected to the requirement
to meet f2f with their electorate in advance of their election or
appointment without an election, nor to the best of my knowledge, are any NC
representatives funding their own travel expenses to Montevideo, and yet
they see fit to raise it as an issue with candidates for the current
election. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

It has not been the practice or the custom for nominees to participate in a
physical meeting with their electorate prior to election, for any position
as Director, member of the NC, Task Forces, GA Chair, or other elected
official of ICANN DNSO. And it wasn't an issue under discussion in this
election, until after the election itself commenced. This could be regarded
as attempts to change the rules of the election after it has started
(whether or not it is a good or bad thing). Therefore, candidates in this
election could not have been expected to think that physical attendance
would be a requirement to qualify, and in fact, it is not. Allegations now
being made that candidates should not have accepted nomination if they were
not prepared to attend, are completely unfounded. If you want to change the
rules, you may do so by consensus, but not retroactively by fiat. If you
allow any organization to impose rules and regulations in this way, there is
no end to abuse, hence the importance of concrete consensus building
procedures to arrive at fair election rules for all affected stakeholders,
something I myself have advocated very strongly since day one, and is
supported by calls for the same by the ALSC and ICANN Board, amongst others.
Attendance of Board candidates at ICANN meetings has not been formally
adopted in any rules, and is therefore outside the scope of any possible
criteria that can be set by the NC in their deliberations to judge
integrity, willingness or interest of any candidate.

Nevertheless, the NC, at the 11th hour, has in its wisdom, taken the
position that the election should not take place without giving candidates
the opportunity to meet with that part of the electorate that will be in
attendance in Montevideo, and in particular, the ccTLD constituency
representatives who have difficulty communicating with members by other
means. It could therefore be viewed that new criteria set for this election
by one constituency, the ccTLDs, supported by other constituencies, has been
introduced without proper advance notice having been given to affected
stakeholders who have endorsed candidates already, and not necessarily those
who were not planning to attend. It may or may not be that those endorsers
would have rather nominated an alternative candidate. We will never know
simply because the goal posts have moved during the election.

The notice given to candidates by the NC Teleconference was well past any
reasonable notice period that would normally be required for a person to
make themselves available. Now, what is required is to abandon prior
committments and fly half way round the world for pro bono work, and at
personal expense, since those who have called for the interview are not
willing to pay expenses.

I was aware that ICANN was a not for profit organization, but I did not
think it was a charity, and for a number of years I have personally
established a policy of charitable giving only to children in need and
regret that ICANN does not qualify. As far as pro bono work, I have given
the major portion of my time for many months to DNSO at the expense of other
pro bono and my own business work that I would normally be doing, and have
to draw the line at out of pocket expenses amounting to thousands of
dollars, whether or not I can afford it.

Also, it is not my intention to approach my supporters for funding as that
discourages those who may now be deliberating on adding their name in
support, thinking that if they do so, they will be hit for a contribution.
Endorsements of individuals without a corporate paymaster should not come
with a price tag that those with corporate funding do not have to impose.

Those organizations that do fund participants have either not replied to
inquiries made since this issue arose, or have responded negatively. It has
already been mentioned that it is too late to make such applications.
 
I sense this is a sports game, whereby, having already competed as an
unsponsored woman in a largely sponsored man's club and qualified as a
player, run round the field a few times and scored a few points, now, 5
minutes before time, the home base has been moved to a few thousand miles
away, way out of sight......
 
In any developing organization, obviously the goal posts will move, but it
is worth noting that the results of moving these specific goal posts at this
particular moment in time *does* discriminate against those that seek to
represent the non-represented, (however coincidental that may be). By
default, this situation favors those candidates with business interests that
are already well represented at all levels, including the Board, and at a
time when even the ALSC is calling for a more diverse and balanced
representation within this organization.

Is it any wonder that DNSO has begun to splinter off real talent, namely
ccTLDs and now possibly NCDNHC. It is this moving of the goal posts,
backward and forward, that has frustrated genuine participation in the
process, and prevented real improvements being made.

Too bad this election is an illusion of fair play, rather than evidence of
it. I will, nevertheless, continue to strive and speak out for higher
standards, by whatever means possible. As I said in my candidate statement,
this is a vote for conscience. You do not need me in Montevideo to meet your
own. History will be the judge of your vote.

Regards,

Joanna

The URLs for Best Practices: DNSO Citation:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/gaindex.html
(Under "Other Information Documents"; "August 2001:
Proposal for Best Practices for the DNSO GA")
Part I: 
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BestPractices.html
Part II: 
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BP-flowchart.pdf
(Access to the .pdf file requires installing the Adobe Acrobat
Reader, which is available for free down load at
http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.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