DNSO Mailling lists archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[ga] Joop Teemstra's candidacy

Dear Joop,
I gather from your response that you would accept the work load of
a role in the IDNH support. This is good news.

However I am afraid I will NOT support you to join the NC. For several
reasons I ask everyone sharing our common interest for IDNH to be
fairly represented to study carefully.

1) it seems very uncertain that the DNSO will survive in its present
     form. To be mixed with it now is not necessarily be good.
2) the split of the ccTLDs creates an obvious positioning problem
     for the IDNHC and I doubt that this will be discussed and solved
     at DNSO level only.
3) I accept that you have proposed a long forgotten patch to Danny's
     motion, but I absolutely object to the word "IC". I am supporting
     efforts for an IUSO/IUAC (Individual/Internet User SO or Advisory
     Committee) now much discussed. Every reference to IDNHC in
     Stockholm by BoD Member was as "IDNHC". IC is a confusion
     trap to fight the IUSO project feared as decreasing DNSO weight.
4) your image is attached to a principle. You are a flag and have
     acquired in your area a figure  la Jon Postel. I would hate seeing
     it spoilt in the daily debate. Experience shown that you were
     fiercely fought (and supported) at the IDNO but once that was
     over, your adversaries were the first to tell how important you
     were to conduct this cause and asked you to wear our colors.

We are going to vote for a BoD Member. As recalled a few days
ago, last year Jonathan Cohen got 10% of the votes, Jamie 60%
and Peter de Blanc 30%. This GA is much in favor of an IDNH
ad-hoc representation. So, I suppose you would get supported by
the GA easily and that the NC owes us a compensation for last
year. Since you are from Asia, there is not geographical constraint.

I therefore think perfectly credible and advisable to nominate you
for DNSO Director at the ICANN Board, if you so agree.

The advantage would be that you could - from inside - propose
the correct positions depending on the whole iCANN structure
evolution. Without seeing your image endangered at any time.
Also, no minor point, your presence at the Quarterly meetings
would be granted as the iCANN would pay for your travels.

This being said, I fully support the nomination proposed by
WXW of DPF to the NC. This is certainly a perfect choice.
However we face the geographical distribution issue I rose
yesterday in preparation of this post.

Your entry to the BoD would not create unbalance. BoD is
more on personal and defended cause criteria. But one ANZ
more in the DNSO top set could rise objection if nothing is
made first about China and India and then Africa. We want to
represent individual domain name holders: we must clearly
show we are standing by then and by their problems. Their
most important problems today with the iCANN are its
"WASP" centered representation and the language of
contractual documents, contracts and procedures like
the UDPR they cannot even read.

To address this I would propose to select a 9 persons
representative [and active] committee among us:

- North America
- Latin America
- Western Europe
- Eastern Europe
- Africa
- Eastern Asia
- Indian area
- Middle East
- Pacific

They would select a speaker (could be on a rotating basis).
They might also serve as a test for the 9 BoD @large seats.
They would probably not select a rotating language ;-)
but they might have their position statements translated in
different languages.


On 09:04 09/06/01, Joop Teernstra said:
>At 17:07 8/06/01 +0100, Michael Froomkin wrote:
>>I agree with both parts of the message quoted below..
>>Dassa wrote:
>> > First I would think a call for nominations for the position would be in
>> > order and then a vote by the GA to select the member the assembly thinks
>> > would be best suited.  If the GA is agreeable to the Chair specifying the
>> > appointment, I have no objection but will point out it may give reason for
>> > others in future to state a rejection of the choice.
>> >
>I too agree with this point.
>> > Second, Joop, as you mention has been predominate in the attempts to
>> > instigate an Individuals Constituency.  He has made petition to the ICANN
>> > Board in his endevours.   For reasons of their own, the Board has not
>> > looked favourably on the submissions made by Joop and it appears that 
>> he is
>> > not held in favour with that forum.  This may cause his participation in
>> > the process to taint, in the Board's eyes, the outcomes.  I say this 
>> not to
>> > belittle Joops achievements or to cast aspirations against him, but to
>> > highlight the fact he appears to have generated some disfavour in certain
>> > quarters.
>I have not noticed any personal resentment from any Board member at any time.
>I'm afraid the above "it appears" is based on giving  credence to Mr 
>Pacificroot's "done deal" with ICANN staff .
>If we want to go "top down" we might as well be consistent and ask for the 
>Board or the NC to appoint a GA member as part of the task force.
>The GA has been able to elect its own chair. It should be able to elect 
>its own delegate to an NC task force.
>Founder of the Cyberspace Association.
>Former bootstrap of the IDNO (www.idno.org)
>Developer of    The Polling Booth
>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

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

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>