Re: [ga] Clarification w/r/t Jonathan Cohen's Involvement in Working Group B

[Kristy <k@widgital.net>]

Do any of these folks have any technical knowledge of the systems?

Could any of these folks build a network and get it online with hardware and
software only to help them along?

?

~k


At 01:22 PM 8/30/2000 , Michael D. Palage wrote:
>I am writing this email in response to a posting last week regarding
>Jonathan Cohen's involvement in Working Group B. Let me begin by disclosing
>that I nominated Jonathan for reelection to the ICANN Board. I believe that
>I am qualified to describe Jonathan's involvement in Working Group B, as I
>was the original co-chair with Jonathan. After his election to the ICANN
>Board, I functioned as sole chair for several months until the Names Counsel
>appointed Kathy Kleiman and Philip Sheppard as joint Names Counsel Liaisons.
>
>Working Group B was created last May at the regional ICANN meeting in
>Berlin, Germany, along with Working Groups A & C. Jonathan Cohen and Amadeu
>Abril were appointed co-chairs of Working Group A. Because of some of the
>criticisms surrounding the procedures in Working Group A, it was decided
>that the one co-chair would be appointed by the Names Council and the other
>would be elected by the groups participants. I was elected as the alternate
>chair by default when no one else expressed an interest. This election took
>place prior to the ICANN Regional meeting in Santiago, Chile.
>
>At this time, Working Group B was still in the formative stage, with no more
>than twenty initial members. After the Santiago meeting, Jonathan announced
>his intention to run for a position on the ICANN Board. Following this
>announcement, Jonathan undertook a less visible role within the Working
>Group B process, although he continued to offer his insight and expertise
>leading up to the election.
>
>After his election to the ICANN Board for a period of one year, I continued
>to serve as the sole chair of Working Group B until the appointment of Kathy
>and Philip by the Names Counsel several months later.
>
>Having made this clarification, I would like to offer my insights on some of
>the candidates running for election to the ICANN Board from the DNSO.
>
>The reason that I nominated Jonathan for reelection was because of his
>diverse skill set and his record to date. Two of the bigger challenges
>facing the ICANN Board in the near future are overseeing the proof of
>concept phase for new top-level domains, including any potential issues
>involving the intellectual property community, and increasing involvement
>among ccTLD registry operators in the ICANN process. I believe that Jonathan
>is uniquely qualified to handles these challenges based upon his expertise
>as an intellectual property attorney and in his involvement in the Canadian
>ccTLD registry.
>
>Although I believe that Jonathan is the most qualified candidate for
>election to the Board, there are several other candidates with impressive
>credentials that could make a contribution to the Board. For example, Jamie
>Love has recently became a very active participant within the ICANN process.
>The best word to describe Jamie is passionate. Although I may not always
>agree with Jamie's viewpoints, I respect his unwavering dedication to his
>beliefs. I personally hope that Jamie considers running for the recently
>vacant Names Counsel position within the Non-Commercial Constituency. I
>believe that involvement at the Names Counsel level will provide Jamie with
>some valuable hands on experience with regard to the ICANN process.
>
>Turning my attention to Ron Weikers, I have know Ron for several years and
>use to working with him at a law firm in Philadelphia. Although Ron has a
>solid technical and legal background, he is a relative newcomer to the ICANN
>process. I have reservations about his ability to get up to speed on the
>issues confronting the Board, specifically those involving the ccTLDs.
>
>With regard to the remaining candidates, Peter LeBlanc appears to be a
>popular candidate although I have never had the privilege of meeting him. I
>have a great deal of respect for several of the people that have endorsed
>his candidacy. Peter's strength appears to be in the ccTLD community, which
>as mentioned above is highly important at this point in time. In reading
>Peter's acceptance/position statement, however, it appears that his primary
>focus is advancing the interests of the ccTLD community. I believe that the
>strongest candidate should be the one that has his/her finger on the pulse
>of every constituency.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>--
>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>http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>  
--
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