[nc-transfer] Comments from Joanna Lane -- registrant representative
Subj: FW: [council] TF Transfers
Date: 11/29/01 8:47:06 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Joanna Lane)
To: email@example.com (Cade,Marilyn S - LGA)
CC: DannyYounger@cs.com (Danny Younger)
Vany's proposal to appoint an At Large Director as a Registrants
Representative has presented another alternative to my own participation,
and while I think that has merits, I would add my 2 cents to the discussion
When seeking the best available representative of individual registrants, a
candidate with a track record of having been elected by this group has an
advantage over one who has not been elected. Having said that, outreach
problems remain the same as nobody has access to the At Large Member
database, and that is certainly one possibility for the Task Force to
explore with ICANN Staff, whoever is appointed ultimately.
With respect to Oscar Robles comment,
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-transfer/Arc00/msg00066.html, I do not
agree with the concept that ICANN Directors can only wear one hat. By that
logic, none of the Directors could ever make a decision in their day jobs
without reference to their obligations under Section 8 of ICANN's Bylaws.
At Large Dirctors are bright enough to distinguish between acting in the
capacity of an ICANN Director and any other capacity. In this case, we would
simply be asking for the Director to set aside Section 8 while undertaking
this role on this Task Force. It passes the reasonable person test for me.
Since Karl Auerbach has been nominated, and from time to time comments on
DNSO affairs in the GA in a personal capacity and well as an AL Director, I
suggest the most expedient way to resolve this question would be to ask him
what he thinks about the possibility of his own participation, and/ or the
requirement for an alternative representative such as myself.
Then we would have some indication in advance about whether or not this Task
Force could be embarking on a 4 months project, only to see their work
thrown out by the Board on the basis that it did not include adequate
representation for those significantly impacted by the policy.
I'm sorry to press you, but I am still waiting for your decision regarding
my participation. It is now several weeks since my original request was
submitted and I also sought to resolve this once and for all in the most
direct way possible several days ago in my letter to you copied below, to
which you have so far failed to reply.