<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [ga] Additional Questions for our Board Candidates
Jefsey,
You
misterpreted my email as you wished to. Read it again. :-) It suggested a
few days into the endorsement period before pressuring the candiates
for statement. I did not suggest what you interpreted... into my
statement. Happy to clarify it here, again.
The
Endorsement period is for the candidates to build an endorsement list which is
useful to those who don't know the candidate.
I'm
studying each of the posted statements as I am sure that GA members are doing as
well. Giving a few days from the start of the endorsement period before
expecting to see statements seems a useful approach.
I see
no need for a further extended period as you describe.
Dear Marilyn, I full agree
with you there: we should have a break ! :-)
The election schedule is
oddly made since there is no debate before decisions. There is no delay
between the nomination and endorsement period and no clearly defined delay
between endorsment period and election date.
You are right, there
should be a one or two week delay between the end of the acceptance
period and the begining of the endorsments, for people to get familiar
with every candidate. If I observe this election: three candidates have only
posted once or twice on the GA this year. Three others are unknown face to
face to quite every NC Members.
We will probably agree on studying the
two solutions:
- a delay between the end of a phase and the begining of
the next phase as you suggest.
- the endorsment period is to end as
this year before a quarterly meeting and the NC vote to be taken after that
meeting. This to give an opportunity for the NC Members to equally meet or
better know every candidate, to avoid any election/result related diversion
during the meeting and to take a serene vote after each Member had time to
quietely consider his options during his flight back.
Thank you for
this pragmatic and common sense suggestion. Jefsey
On 05:57
10/08/01, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA said:
Danny, could I ask that we slow down just a bit and allow the
endorsement period to get started before demanding responses. I am sure that
the candidates will be responsive to an organized approach to consult with
the constituencies and GA. However, I note that the nomination phase just closed,
and we are now in endorsement phase. Perhaps we could let that play out a
few days since that will be a useful exercise in and of itself.
I understand that
some may feel that they need to ask questions before endorsing, of course,
so I am merely suggesting that we, the GA, give it a few days before
appearing to set deadlines, or appear critical of the candidates for not
responding immediately. Marilyn
- -----Original Message-----
- From: DannyYounger@cs.com [mailto:DannyYounger@cs.com]
- Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2001 11:24 PM
- To: ga@dnso.org
- Cc: ejonvel@ej.net; Paul.Kane@reacto.com; jefsey@wanadoo.fr;
jo-uk@rcn.com; Amadeu@nominalia.com
- Subject: [ga] Additional Questions for our Board
Candidates
- It's time that we started hearing from our Board
candidates. If they intend
- to represent the DNSO, they should, at the very least, be responsive
to the
- GA. We have already submitted four questions to our Board
candidates; here
- are some more... let's hope we get a few more replies...
- 1. What are your thoughts regarding the decision of the
ccTLD Constituency
- to withdraw from the DNSO?
- 2. Board Resolution 01.28 asked for proposals that may
result in changes in
- the structure of the DNSO and/or major changes in its
functioning. What
- proposals would you put forth?
- 3. What is your position on current registrar transfer
policies?
- 4. What changes would you propose with respect to the
UDRP?
- 5. Do you support suspending the voting rights of
financially delinquent
- constituencies?
- 6. Small Business Owners account for perhaps 70% of all
domain
- registrations yet this set of stakeholders does not appear to be
- well-represented in the ICANN process; how would you address this
issue?
- 7. The At-Large Study Committee was given a budget of
$450,000 in order to
- accomplish outreach and generate recommendations; the DNSO is
similarly an
- internal working committee of ICANN that engages in outreach and
generates
- recommendations, but it has never been given any financial support by
ICANN.
- Do you believe that the DNSO should continue to be self-funding?
- 8. How would you evaluate the current TLD rollout?
- 9. What comments would you make regarding ICP-3?
- 10. It is now going on nine months since the new TLDs were
selected and yet
- several registry contracts still remain to be signed; in view of the
public's
- growing demand for new TLDs, how would you address this issue?
- 11. As new TLDs are launched, the prospect of collisions in
namespace grows;
- how do you propose to solve this problem?
- 12. What is your position with respect to the future of .org?
- 13. What is your position regarding the sale of Bulk WHOIS data?
- 14. Is seven days sufficient time to review a registry contract?
- 15. When would you begin the next round of TLD
selections?
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|