[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [council] DNSO Elected Board Members
Dennis Jennings wrote:
> Dear NC Colleagues,
> I would like to discuss the election of ICANN Board members by the DNSO NC
> - not in terms of the individual candidates - but in terms of the sort of
> people we should elect to the Board.
Yes, I think it is time we start doing that. And also discussing
names,-why not? This is what we will be asked to do (Editor's Note:
the author keeps saying "we", referring moreto the instituion as scuh,
the NC, than to the exact grup of people. He himsels is not at all
sure to be reelected to the permanent NC, but ths use of "we" seems to
be more easy and conveneint to him, btw).
> I feel that we need ICANN Board members who do not come from a single
> constituency or carry a constituency agenda.
Both things are not the same. I cannot agree with the faxt that we
should not elect people who come form one given consituency. This is
nothing we should preent, quite the contrary.
As for the agenda, this temr seems to have a rather negative
implication in English. I, for one, would like knowing what the
candidates think about ICANN as a process and an insitution, its
funding, the reation between SOs. the role of the at large membership,
the relationship with DoC, the role of the GAC, his)her priorites in
the DNS reform, if any, and so on.......
I don't believe in "poeple without prejudices". I prefer hones t
poeple with views, even when they don't match mine. Porvided that they
know that they are not elected to represent just their views, but the
interests of ICANN as such.
I am not comfortable with this view that consituencies are like
political parites fighitng in order to get hold of the administration.
I do represent registrars (even if not a rgistrar myself) but share
with IPC the need to devise a workable dispute policy which is apllied
uniformly. Most of the clients of the people I do represent are
non.-comercial or individual users, I canpt see those interests as
"alien". And we could go consituency by consituency in that way. This
is true even for the GTLD Registry constituncy, even if due to the
current reform in process the registrars as a group are supposed to be
negotiatiinhg (and therefore strongly disagreeing in many repsects).
Most of the issues discussed here have garhered a very large
interconsituency support. As a proof that we should not exagerate the
"consitucncy devidng line".
Perhaps the fact that the ccTLD registires consituency (and to certain
extent the NCDNHC probalby due ot the longer inception process and
consequent later arrival) has been the only one who has placed itself
outside the general consensus in a number of areas does affedt your
own view of the problem. But this situation is largle a fact of the
past, I hope.
I think we need senior people
> with a proven record of dealing with high level policy issues who will be
> able to debate the issues (advised by the DNSO through briefing papers and
> discussions), and make objective decisions.
No objection. But "ignarance of the files" should not vbe a
requirement, even if it is not a fatal drawback.
> That's why I have nominated Carl Bildt for election.
Ooops, I was right: we should discuss nmaes ;-=
> I would like to have a discussion about this on the NC - to help us inform
> ourselves about who we should elect.
As for the principles, I have already pointed out the gernal agreement
with your points, and the limits of the implications.
I would also like,pointing out that we should not think about one good
name and supprot it. We need to select three good Directors, and
perhaps our best name is not the one that combines better with the
other two avaialbe.. or alreay elected.