<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [ga] Additional Questions for our Board Candidates
Dear Marilyn,
I think I correctly interpreted you remark, but with a different culture.
In my European culture this kind of lobbying you describe does not exist.
Or not yet. For us it is anti-democratic by confusion. We do not campaign
once votes have stared. I accept your culture, I am sure you will
understand mine.
On 13:25 10/08/01, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA said:
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.
You have to understand that several people have already endorsed one or
several candidates and went into vacations considering their job
done.They agree on key points they discussed for some weeks or months and
they trust the candidates to explains others. This is no more lobby but
voting period.
We use to think that the duration of the endorsment period is to permit
Members to make their decision. Not to build any support league. That
should have been done before, based upon serious work and common
analysis. Discussing matters during an open vote is for us illegal: I am
ready to adapt to the current ICANN system and to respond to question of
hesitants information, but I find this shocking. The only alibi I find is
that it permits to work together on some ignored topics.
Hence my approbation of your your request for what I took for a recess
demand.
The
Endorsement period is for the candidates to build an endorsement list
which is useful to those who don't know the candidate.
This is totally foreign to my democatic deecision culture. I do respect
the NC Members enough to believe they are independent sophisticated
minded people who take their decisions by themselves in discussing with
the candidates or with serious people used to work with them for a long
and sharing their view; rather that to be influenced by the pressures or
enthusiam of accidental afficionados.
I discover here another odd meaning of the word "constiuency",
a word which should IMHO definitly be removed from the ICANN language as
too much culturally differently rooted.
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 probably totally musinderstand your words here: I am lost. How
may people study statements before they may be expecting to see
statements? Are there the same statements?
I
see no need for a further extended period as you describe.
I do not speak of a extended period.
I request the agenda to be set-up accordint to the bylaws for a serene,
efficient and fair decision and not to be rushed among many other things
before a long trip and an important meeting. I prefer the Montevideo
meeting not to be hampered by the aftermath of the BoD elections. I favor
a the DNSO representation not to be bothered by the simultaneous presence
of a current and of a monkey Director.
I just want to add a word. The issue is not the person to be elected. The
issue is the image of the DNSO and the capacity of the DNSO Director
elect to act. With different skills, orientations, priorities every
candidate would probably be a good Director.
The point is that he could be a DNSO supported Director, both by the GA
and the NC. Today if we were taking a poll of this GA asking Members who
are the three DNSO Directors, I would be surprised many would know. This
explains a lot about the DNSO position within the ICANN and about the
ICANN capacities and image. No one wants to repeat last year GA shock.
I do not favor any candidate. I favor a candidate by NC consensus to GA
satisfaction. I believe it is possible and I believe it would be the best
turn to the DNSO, to the NC and to the GA. For that we need three
candidates out of five to be known by the GA and three other candidates
out of five to be known by the NC.
Jefsey
- -----Original Message-----
- From: Jefsey Morfin
[mailto:jefsey@wanadoo.fr]
- Sent: Friday, August 10, 2001 5:49 AM
- To: ga@dnso.org
- Subject: RE: [ga] Additional Questions for our Board Candidates
- 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
>>>
|