<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [ga] FW: ICANN meeting in Montevideo
Dear Vany,
this only shows how absurdly ill managed is the ICANN Corporation.
Do you think that any other Corporation would stand in business five
minutes in having their contractors - what are the SOs - asked to pay
for providing it services?
I think your NC teleconferencing budget is here: ask the operators to
pay you for talking in front of their camera :-) You will tell them it is
normal ICANN practice.
The ICANN has to decide once for all if it is either:
- a Corporation conducting business in order to cover its budget and
trying to stabilize and protect its revenues in a contractual way as
does any corporation, choosing its strategy and objective accordingly.
In that case it is totally subject to competition and it is to drastically
review its policy in order to pay for what it uses, or to go down.
So, I want to see a clear plan covering all the expenses incurred by
the ICANN - including the payment of every travel and expense it
exposes its contractors and helpers to. When you do not have the
money for something, you do not spend it. Period.
I am in NO mood to pay for the ICANN mismanagement. I am in no
mood to subsidize GIP members with my family money. Nor US
DoC interests. I already my my French taxes. I am also in NO
mood to support such a biased mismanagement which hurts my
interests thought the ICP-3 monopolistic attitude. I fully support
any competitor who will provide me better, more stable, more
secure, more professional, more open services, more cooperative
services. If I was not I would be a fool.
- or a non profit association of stake holding Members represented
through their constituencies, with common good as an objective with
a budget covered by Members in proportion to the turn-over in the
Internet area and participating into the cost of the services they
obtain from he ICANN.
Such an endeavor being seriously controlled by these Members to
avoid any mission creep, and being strictly cost limited to the
Membership fees and contributions.
I would consider as unstabilizing any help a Foundation might bring to
anyone to pay for something owed by the ICANN. I fully support that
a Foundation might pay for Joop attending the Montevideo meeting where
he wants to propose a new project. Or developing ccTLD being helped
as ccTLDs are either customers or Members of the ICANN. I fully
support that my own Foundation spends a very few money on some
ICANN oriented projects.
But, after consideration, I fully disapprove - it was mistake of mine to
fall into that trap and I apologize and correct it here - to ask for my own
travel to Montevideo. No BoD Member, no NC Member, no candidate,
no employee, no contractor should ever pay for any ICANN related
expense. Never.
I even say that every incurred expense of that kind since the start of
the ICANN should be listed by present and former BoD, NC Members,
employees and Candidates and be paid back by the ICANN. I am
extremely serious about this. I fully state that the current practice is
dishonest.
Let be clear, it is not only ethically dishonest. It is also a bad
practice against the Global Internet Community interest. It only favors
lobbying professionalism over professional dedication, network
service management competence and user interest protection. This
destabilizes the network and lead to a de facto monopolistic situation.
This will only resolve through the confusion of the rise of competitors
to the ICANN or international investigation or disinterest.
That ICANN has not the money for its expenses is either due to poorly
computed rates because of an ill understanding of what competition
is, or due to too many totally out of scope issues. IMHO both are true.
This boils down to incompetence and mission creep.
When I learn what you say, there is not a need for a change. There
is an obligation for a stop. I am sorry, Vany, for all that. I apologize for
having smiled at your efforts to get subsidies for you travels I took for
political lobbying. You deserve all my/our respect. But you have to stop.
To conclude I fully understand now why only 2 trips as paid for. Over 2,
if the project was good, it should have be taken, and be now paid, by
the ICANN. It seems that people in Salzburg are wiser than in MdR.
Now, we have many US lawyers here:
- if in an US citizen, could have Vany tax deducted the cost of her
travels?
- how do you qualify the fact for a corporation to pay for the expenses
of a person on a board in another company it does business with?
Jefsey
On 15:01 24/08/01, Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales said:
>Jefsey and all:
>
>There's no such GA candidates nor NC candidates, etc. There is simply
>DNSO candidates!!! If you begin to clasify candidates in such a way that you
>and others are doing, you are simply trying that other's see this process as
>vicious. And it is not.
>
>As far as I know all candidates was nominated by GA members anyway, and
>none of
>such nomineers was NC members.
>
>No NC member is funded by ICANN funds neither DNSO funds to travel to ICANN
>meetings.
>
>And, it can happen that being an NC member or ICANN Board member, such
>member is
>unable to attend certain ICANN meetings even if the funds are available
>from own
>funds, company funds, other external sources.
>
>I am an NC member, and it happened that for Stockholm meeting my organization
>didn't have budget for pay for me to attend such meeting, I am unelegible to
>receive funds from Salzburg Seminar because I received in the past two grants.
>I searched other external funds, but I didn't find them. And guess what? I
>decided to pay from my own pocket the airticket and other expenses while
>in Stockholm and a coleague from Honduras that went also to Stockholm for
>ICANN meeting kindly offered me her room to stay because it has another bed.
>
>Now imagine that the actual situation is for Stockholm meeting and not
>Montevideo meeting, and I have a nomination I accepted for ICANN Board. My
>situation would be exactly the same. No funds from DNSO, no funds from
>constituency, no travel grants, no funds from ICANN, no funds from anywhere,
>only my own pocket (and still I don't achieve to make lower my debt with my
>credit card).
>
>All people (including candidates for certain positions) has the same chance to
>decide wether attend or not certain ICANN meetings. If some of the candidates
>has sponsors or decides to sponsor from their own pocket, or simply doesn't
>finds any sponsor and decides not go, this is the bussiness of everyone and is
>not related in any manner with actual positions they hold (NC members,
>ICANN Board members, etc), because no money comes from ICANN, neither DNSO
>funds
>to pay or sponsor candidacy activities.
>
>I would like that, in the future, there will be an organization/foundation
>that
>decides to have travel grants for DNSO candidates when needed or applicable.
>
>And please, keep in mind...all candidates are DNSO candidates!!!
>
>Best Regards
>Vany
>
>
>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@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
>
>--
>Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales
>Information Technology Specialist
>Sustainable Development Networking Programme/Panama
>e-mail: vany@sdnp.org.pa
>http://www.sdnp.org.pa
>
>
>
>--
>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
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|