<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [ga] Additional Questions for our Board Candidates
Jeffsey, the votes have not started during the
endorsement period. Endorsement is part of an opportunity to hear from the
candidates, and see who else supports them... in short, while we in
the U.S. might call a campaign period; others might call it candidate
awareness or interactions...
However, no votes take place during the endorsement
period. ... Votes take place once the endorsement period
end.
I
don't see any cultural confusion in those facts.
Marilyn
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
>>>
|