Re: [ga] FW: ICANN meeting in Montevideo

[Derek Conant <dconant@dnsga.org>]

>  Good luck with the election.
>
>Sincerely, 
>Kristi Plähn-Gjersvold
>Grants Manager, Benton Foundation

It appeared that you solicited the Benton Foundation on behalf of the
DNSO and ICANN for your Board candidacy.  Or, was your thinking that you
were going to represent the Benton Foundation if they funded your trip
to Montevideo?  

My understanding is that the Benton Foundation has not been following
this process.  If your thinking was that your were going to represent
your own views, why then expect the Benton Foundation to support you and
fund you? 
Money, grants and funding are disappearing in today's troubled economy
and the economy is probably going to get a whole lot worse before it
begins to get better.

I gather from your opposition to my posts concerning APOs and
restructuring the DNSO
(http://dnsga.org/announcements/atlarge_5june01.html), that you support
counting everyone's votes and that you are against enterprise
organizations representing stake holders, interested parties and the
At-Large.

Money is scarce.  Who is going to fund your point of view and expenses? 
How are you going to demonstrate that you have the funding, staff and
necessary resources to adequately represent the GA constituency?  If you
are elected, how can you properly represent your constituency without
money for your time and expenses?  It takes money to properly compile
and present information concerning a constituency's position.

It takes money.  There is no money with your way of thinking.  Most
organizations (non-profit, etc.) have experienced shrinking budgets for
grants and funding and they have no money to spare.  
  

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

On 12 May 2001 ICANN CEO Stuart Lynn made the following comment
concerning ICANN funding DNSO expenses:

"As I understand it, ICANN's budgets are not used for covering SO
expenses.  This does not single out the DNSO or the GA, but applies
across the all SO's. Perhaps your opinion is that this should change,
and the budget should be adapted to accommodate certain kinds of SO
expenses.  In which case, that is a matter to be pursued through
process, ultimately requiring Board approval. We cannot make exceptions
on an ad hoc basis and be fair to all constituencies."

"If the acceptance of a volunteer position depended upon travel for
which I have no sources of support, I would most certainly check in
advance as to what is the relevant policy before agreeing to accept."

=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=


It may be the case that the state of the world's economy demands that
standards and policy be derived from market driven forces.  It may be
the case that it will be ICANN's responsibility to weigh and control
standards and policy that are derived from market driven forces. 
Because of competition, market driven forces will advance the creation
of new technology and efficient processes, protect consumer privacy and
information, protect the integrity of the Domain Name System (DNS) and
market driven forces will prevent the system from being captured.

It takes money to properly compile and present information concerning
competition and new technology.  An organization with money and
resources that can properly compile and present information for their
constituency should be allowed to compete for the ICANN Board's
attention and votes.

The matter of organizations being qualified to present information to
the ICANN Board and being qualified to vote on ICANN agenda, concerning
the integrity of the DNS and the development of standards and policy,
should be at the very same level and priority as that used in assessing
New TLD Registry Applications and Accredited Registrar Applications for
the integrity of the DNS.     

We need to change our way of thinking because what we are doing now is
not working.

Derek Conant
DNSGA President and Chairman

Telephone:  (202) 801-0158
Facsimile:  (202) 234-0685
E-mail:  dconant@dnsga.org 

Joanna Lane wrote:
> 
> on 8/22/01 12:57 PM, Derek Conant at dconant@dnsga.org wrote:
> 
> > Was it appropriate to solicit funding on behalf of the DNSO GA without
> > formal authorization or permission from the DNSO or ICANN?
> 
> I have never professed to speak for DNSO GA and do not now, neither have I
> solicited funds on behalf of the DNSO GA from anybody.
> 
> There are a lot of generalizations being bandied about in this discussion
> about funding of Board candidates for Montevideo. Some of these are missing
> the salient points.
> 
> What is being overlooked is that on this particular occasion, the election
> of a Board Director coincides with a physical meeting of those judging the
> merits of the candidates. That is an unusual situation. None of those
> participating in this vote have themselves been subjected to the requirement
> to meet f2f with their electorate in advance of their election or
> appointment without an election, nor to the best of my knowledge, are any NC
> representatives funding their own travel expenses to Montevideo, and yet
> they see fit to raise it as an issue with candidates for the current
> election. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
> 
> It has not been the practice or the custom for nominees to participate in a
> physical meeting with their electorate prior to election, for any position
> as Director, member of the NC, Task Forces, GA Chair, or other elected
> official of ICANN DNSO. And it wasn't an issue under discussion in this
> election, until after the election itself commenced. This could be regarded
> as attempts to change the rules of the election after it has started
> (whether or not it is a good or bad thing). Therefore, candidates in this
> election could not have been expected to think that physical attendance
> would be a requirement to qualify, and in fact, it is not. Allegations now
> being made that candidates should not have accepted nomination if they were
> not prepared to attend, are completely unfounded. If you want to change the
> rules, you may do so by consensus, but not retroactively by fiat. If you
> allow any organization to impose rules and regulations in this way, there is
> no end to abuse, hence the importance of concrete consensus building
> procedures to arrive at fair election rules for all affected stakeholders,
> something I myself have advocated very strongly since day one, and is
> supported by calls for the same by the ALSC and ICANN Board, amongst others.
> Attendance of Board candidates at ICANN meetings has not been formally
> adopted in any rules, and is therefore outside the scope of any possible
> criteria that can be set by the NC in their deliberations to judge
> integrity, willingness or interest of any candidate.
> 
> Nevertheless, the NC, at the 11th hour, has in its wisdom, taken the
> position that the election should not take place without giving candidates
> the opportunity to meet with that part of the electorate that will be in
> attendance in Montevideo, and in particular, the ccTLD constituency
> representatives who have difficulty communicating with members by other
> means. It could therefore be viewed that new criteria set for this election
> by one constituency, the ccTLDs, supported by other constituencies, has been
> introduced without proper advance notice having been given to affected
> stakeholders who have endorsed candidates already, and not necessarily those
> who were not planning to attend. It may or may not be that those endorsers
> would have rather nominated an alternative candidate. We will never know
> simply because the goal posts have moved during the election.
> 
> The notice given to candidates by the NC Teleconference was well past any
> reasonable notice period that would normally be required for a person to
> make themselves available. Now, what is required is to abandon prior
> committments and fly half way round the world for pro bono work, and at
> personal expense, since those who have called for the interview are not
> willing to pay expenses.
> 
> I was aware that ICANN was a not for profit organization, but I did not
> think it was a charity, and for a number of years I have personally
> established a policy of charitable giving only to children in need and
> regret that ICANN does not qualify. As far as pro bono work, I have given
> the major portion of my time for many months to DNSO at the expense of other
> pro bono and my own business work that I would normally be doing, and have
> to draw the line at out of pocket expenses amounting to thousands of
> dollars, whether or not I can afford it.
> 
> Also, it is not my intention to approach my supporters for funding as that
> discourages those who may now be deliberating on adding their name in
> support, thinking that if they do so, they will be hit for a contribution.
> Endorsements of individuals without a corporate paymaster should not come
> with a price tag that those with corporate funding do not have to impose.
> 
> Those organizations that do fund participants have either not replied to
> inquiries made since this issue arose, or have responded negatively. It has
> already been mentioned that it is too late to make such applications.
> 
> I sense this is a sports game, whereby, having already competed as an
> unsponsored woman in a largely sponsored man's club and qualified as a
> player, run round the field a few times and scored a few points, now, 5
> minutes before time, the home base has been moved to a few thousand miles
> away, way out of sight......
> 
> In any developing organization, obviously the goal posts will move, but it
> is worth noting that the results of moving these specific goal posts at this
> particular moment in time *does* discriminate against those that seek to
> represent the non-represented, (however coincidental that may be). By
> default, this situation favors those candidates with business interests that
> are already well represented at all levels, including the Board, and at a
> time when even the ALSC is calling for a more diverse and balanced
> representation within this organization.
> 
> Is it any wonder that DNSO has begun to splinter off real talent, namely
> ccTLDs and now possibly NCDNHC. It is this moving of the goal posts,
> backward and forward, that has frustrated genuine participation in the
> process, and prevented real improvements being made.
> 
> Too bad this election is an illusion of fair play, rather than evidence of
> it. I will, nevertheless, continue to strive and speak out for higher
> standards, by whatever means possible. As I said in my candidate statement,
> this is a vote for conscience. You do not need me in Montevideo to meet your
> own. History will be the judge of your vote.
> 
> 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.)
--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html