Re: [ga] FW: ICANN meeting in Montevideo

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Bravo Joana!
Your English being better than mine I will not spoil it.

I will only say:
1. I concurr 100% with every word you say
2. the point is not the candidate capaign but that GA candidates are 
excluded from possibilities and advatages granted to non-GA candidates 
however the larger support they get (see the endorsements).

Jefsey



On 01:25 23/08/01, Joanna Lane said:
>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@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