RE: [ga] Additional Questions for our Board Candidates

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Dear Marilyn,
I full agree with you there: we should have a break ! :-) 

The election schedule is oddly made since there is no debate before
decisions. There is no delay between the nomination and endorsement
period and no clearly defined delay between endorsment period and
election date. 

You are right, there should be a one or two week delay between the end of
the acceptance period  and the begining of the endorsments, for
people to get familiar with every candidate. If I observe this election:
three candidates have only posted once or twice on the GA this year.
Three others are unknown face to face to quite every NC Members.

We will probably agree on studying the two solutions:

- a delay between the end of a phase and the begining of the next phase
as you suggest.

- the endorsment period is to end as this year before a quarterly meeting
and the NC vote to be taken after that meeting. This to give an
opportunity for the NC Members to equally meet or better know every
candidate, to avoid any election/result related diversion during the
meeting and to take a serene vote after each Member had time to quietely
consider his options during his flight back.

Thank you for this pragmatic and common sense suggestion.
Jefsey



On 05:57 10/08/01, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA said:

Danny, could I ask that we slow down just a bit and allow the endorsement period to get started before demanding responses. I am sure that the candidates will be responsive to an organized approach to consult with the constituencies and GA.
 
However, I note that the nomination phase just closed, and we are now in endorsement phase. Perhaps we could let that play out a few days since that will be a useful exercise in and of itself.
 
I understand that some may feel that they need to ask questions before endorsing, of course, so I am merely suggesting that we, the  GA, give it a few days before appearing to set deadlines, or appear critical of the candidates for not responding immediately.
 
Marilyn

-----Original Message-----

From: DannyYounger@cs.com [mailto:DannyYounger@cs.com]

Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2001 11:24 PM

To: ga@dnso.org

Cc: ejonvel@ej.net; Paul.Kane@reacto.com; jefsey@wanadoo.fr; jo-uk@rcn.com; Amadeu@nominalia.com

Subject: [ga] Additional Questions for our Board Candidates

It's time that we started hearing from our Board candidates.   If they intend

to represent the DNSO, they should, at the very least, be responsive to the

GA.  We have already submitted four questions to our Board candidates; here

are some more... let's hope we get a few more replies...

1.   What are your thoughts regarding the decision of the ccTLD Constituency

to withdraw from the DNSO?

2.   Board Resolution 01.28 asked for proposals that may result in changes in

the structure of the DNSO and/or major changes in its functioning.  What

proposals would you put forth?

3.   What is your position on current registrar transfer policies?

4.   What changes would you propose with respect to the UDRP?

5.   Do you support suspending the voting rights of financially delinquent

constituencies?

6.   Small Business Owners account for perhaps 70% of all domain

registrations yet this set of stakeholders does not appear to be

well-represented in the ICANN process; how would you address this issue?

7.   The At-Large Study Committee was given a budget of $450,000 in order to

accomplish outreach and generate recommendations; the DNSO is similarly an

internal working committee of ICANN that engages in outreach and generates

recommendations, but it has never been given any financial support by ICANN.  

Do you believe that the DNSO should continue to be self-funding?

8.   How would you evaluate the current TLD rollout?

9.   What comments would you make regarding ICP-3?

10.  It is now going on nine months since the new TLDs were selected and yet

several registry contracts still remain to be signed; in view of the public's

growing demand for new TLDs, how would you address this issue?

11.  As new TLDs are launched, the prospect of collisions in namespace grows;

how do you propose to solve this problem?

12.  What is your position with respect to the future of .org?

13.  What is your position regarding the sale of Bulk WHOIS data?

14.  Is seven days sufficient time to review a registry contract?

15.  When would you begin the next round of TLD selections?