[ga] Candidate participation - was Re: [ALSC-Forum] Evaluation of NAIS and ALSC Reports

["L Gallegos" <jandl@jandl.com>]

I attempted to attend the NCDNHC meeting but did not succeed 
due to a DNS problem.  However, I did manage to get into the chat 
service.  Not much was said there as it was meant to assist those 
trying to recieve audio/video.

However, I did express my distaste for the fact that only two 
candidates were able to present themselves and that there was no 
phone link or other method afforded to the other candidates.  Their 
reason for not providing a phone link was financial.  Okay.  What is 
the reason for lack of notification and another opportunity for 
participation?  Not everyone has the technical advantage for 
access to the VRVS system, which was evident when I tried.  
Even a moderated chat where candidates could participate would 
have been something.  Last minute notice does not suffice when 
resolutions regarding candidate support are being voted upon.

There was a question posed at the NCDNHC meeting to Paul 
Kane, asking why they should choose him over Amadau.  Had the 
other candidates been allowed an opportunity to answer that 
question at the meeting, there might be some equity.  There is 
none.  They had a vote on the resolution.  I do not no the result.  
Wanna bet it was not the candidates who were not there or 
represented?

IMO, those resolutions are to be taken rather lightly as a result.  It 
seems like a done deal to me.

The same is true for the ALSC outreach meeting.  I attempted to 
call and join that meeting and the link was dropped - technical 
difficulties.  By the time I was able to get in the meeting was 
concluded.

This selection of a board director from the DNSO is a sham, as is 
the ALSC, IMO.  If candidates are not all given equal time for all 
conferences, allowing those in attendance to dialog with all of 
them, it is unfairly imbalanced.

Any SO or constituency that does not afford equal opportunity to 
candidates in every forum and then votes makes that vote as 
illegitimate as the current board configuration.

Leah


On 7 Sep 2001, at 19:41, Joanna Lane wrote:

> on 9/7/01 7:13 PM, L Gallegos at jandl@jandl.com wrote:
> 
> > 
> > Well stated, Sandy.  Now, how do we, the majority, get the
> > minority (ICANN board) to do it.  All signs are that they will do as
> > they have always done - ignore the bylaws or change them to reflect
> > what the special interests want.  How do we change that when we are
> > NOT represented and ICANN answers to no one? DoC will do whatever
> > ICANN wants.
> > 
> > It is this illegitmacy and imbalance that is the problem - the core
> > problem.
> > 
> > Leah
> 
> In the first place, you might want to look at the legitimacy of the
> future proposed ICANN Board. Apparently the ccTLD Constituency feels
> that sending questions to Board Candidates by email less than 4
> minutes prior to the commencement of the meeting in which they are to
> deliberate on their selection, and in the circumstances that two
> candidates are able to present themselves in person, and two are not,
> is nevertheless, giving all candidates an equal opportunity.
> 
> Regards,
> Joanna
> 
> ----------
> From: Joanna Lane <jo-uk@rcn.com>
> Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2001 19:27:30 -0400
> To: ga ml <ga@dnso.org>
> Subject: FW: Urgent: questions for ICANN Board Candidates
> 
> FYI - Allow me to present to the world a copy of an email sent to
> Board Candidates some 2 hours prior to the ccTLD meeting in
> Montevideo, during which meeting, I understand the ccTLDs were to
> deliberate and vote on the selection. 
> 
> Be advised that this email presented itself in my inbox less with less
> than 4 minutes to spare prior to the meeting. I am outraged.
> 
> 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.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----------
> From: "Abhisak Chulya" <abhisak@wwtld.org>
> Reply-To: <abhisak@wwtld.org>
> Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 13:23:03 -0300
> To: <amadeu@nominalia.com>, "Paul M. Kane" <Paul.Kane@reacto.com>,
> <jo-uk@rcn.com>, <jefsey@wanadoo.fr> Subject: Urgent: questions for
> ICANN Board Candidates
> 
> Dear candidates:
> 
> The ccTLD Constituency have made up a list of questions to ask the
> candidates of the Board Election here at the Montevideo meeting. 
> These questions are put in writing and we are giving you an equal
> opportunity to respond and share with us your views.  If you mail your
> views to us we will be put them up as the meeting is going on.  You
> would need to apply within 15:30 Sep. 7 2001 Montevideo time.  Please
> sent your view or answers back to montevideo@wwtld.org.
> 
> Thank you and Best Regards,
> Abhisak Chulya
> ccTLD Secretariat
> 
> Here are the questions:
> 
> 1. To what level do you support the formation of a Country Code TLD
> Supporting Organization and please state your full
> 
> 2. What are your views on ICANN reorganization in general.
> 
> 3. What level of Board Representation do you think is appropriate for
> ccTLDs 6,5, 4 or less?
> 
> 4. Taking into account the special position of ccTLDs, how do you see
> the role of ICANN in relation to ccTLDs a) a lightweight, technical
> co-ordination body b) a global oversight body and regulator c)
> Something between
> 
> 5. What is your background with ccTLDs.
> 
> 6. How do you foresee working with ccTLDs in the future. For the
> existing Director seeking re-election, please also comment about your
> track record during your time on the ICANN board.
> 
> 7. What conflicts of interest do you have and how do you deal with
> them?
> 
> 
> 


--
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