[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[ICANN-EU] Re: The Key Questions for Jeanette Hoffmann
- To: Joop Teernstra <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: [ICANN-EU] Re: The Key Questions for Jeanette Hoffmann
- From: "Jeanette Hofmann" <email@example.com>
- Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 18:55:12 +0100
- CC: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Comment: This message comes from the icann-europe mailing list.
- In-reply-to: <email@example.com>
- Organization: Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin
- References: <39B39B73.13993.4B56E6@localhost>
- Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org
> >Indeed, I needed this time. Frankly, I am still not sure about the best
> > answer to this question.
> Dear Jeanette,
> I don't think you need to look for a "best answer". There is only
> *your* answer.
Sorry, Joop, this may be your way to look at answers. I do indeed
strive for what I'd regard as the best answer under given
circumstances. This implies that I change my opinion occasionally. At
the risk of being trivial: I see myself as a constant learner. In fact, to
question "my own answers" is the finest part of my job. I function well
in environments where I am allowed to learn, where, actually,
everybody enjoys the freedom to change his or her mind without
being immediately condemned as opportunist or traitor. It's called
open discourse, and I will do a lot to get its principles established
within the european at large membership. ---- end of manifesto! ;-)
> >According to the ga-dnso list, many people seem to agree with
> >Harald's view.
> The problem is, that rules have already been enacted (such as the URDP)
> that affect large groups that were not properly represented in the NC.
Yes, I see your point.
> If we now choose to try to influence the Board to abandon the
> constituency structure (not likely to be successful--if you read all the
> comments made in the GA) and we are not coming with good ideas to
> replace it with a more representative and balanced stucture, we are
> actually doing more harm than good.
To make your point even stronger: Who would the "we" be without
being formally acknowledged as IDNO.
> >Thus, if the very structure of the DNSO turns out to be in itself a
> >failure, would it be a good idea to cement this structure by proceeding
> > to establish the constituency of individual domain name holders at
> >this point? Or should this effort be temporarely deferred because the
> >whole structure has been called into question?
> I think this is the question you have to answer for yourself prior to
> asking to have your nomination supported.
So far, I havn't asked any group for support. Besides, I'd wish to get
endorsed for a distinctive approach to issues surrounding ICANN
rather than for concrete answers to single questions. By approach I
mean: How do I handle controversial issues both intellectually and
> >This is a tricky question. As far as I see there is no easy answer
> >available at present.
> Well, here is *my* answer to that question: The effort to improve
> representation should certainly not be "temporarily deferred" .
> This is exactly what the ICANN Board has done since the Berlin meeting.
> (the excuse was then : what about the structure of ICANN@large?
This question has also been raised on the ga@dnso list. What would
be your answer to this?
Again, and be it only for democratic reasons, I don't see why
individual domain holders shouldn't be formally represented,
regardless of how the structure of the DNSO may look like in future.
> It is not exactly that many different constituencies are clamouring to
> be let into the DNSO. It is only one group: the DN owners *as such*. A
> representative structure for them exists and they are ready to
> The key problem with the currently "approved" constituencies is the
> duplication of interests and the exclusion of opposing interests.
> Constituencies (or parties) will always form around issues. The
> structure has to be flexible enough to accommodate this without too much
I fully agree!
> Every Board candidate at this moment should have a vision for what
> should be done with ICANN's most intractable problem, the DNSO.
I share Roberto's position. It is the DNSO's job to get itself
(re)organized. The board's role should be limited to making sure that
the name council sticks to its rules.