Re: [ga] HERE ARE THE GA CANDIDATES

[Eric Dierker <eric@HI-TEK.COM>]

Friends,

I return from a horribly exhausting trip of ASIA, mainly southeast where I had
time to categorize and index the writings of these to wonderful individuals.
They are activists who deal with the issues straight up and honestly.  They are
both profoundly Euro on issues, which we need.  For dot commoners Euro is good
for us Latinos, Americans, Asians and ASEANS.  From Whois Issues to the UDRP to
funding and OUTREACH these two are awesome.

I would ask both to be more simplistic and give us their opines on the ccTLDs and
Inclusive concepts (as the word root may be soon meaningless).  I also ask what
is the point in which they would scrap ICANN altogether.

Yours humbly
eric

Jefsey Morfin wrote:

> 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

--
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