Re: [ICANN-EU] Questions for Jeanette Hofmann and the other candidates

[Joop Teernstra <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>]

At 23:49 27/08/00 +0200, Alf Hansen wrote:
>Joop,
>
>Since you also addressed "other candidates", I will answer.
>
Thank you, Alf.  My apologies for addressing you like that, but I would
rather not spend time dealing with the candidates' egos and go straight
into the subject matter.
Time is short and I still don't know who to give my backing.
Being a Nomcom candidate does not disqualify you, I think. :-)

>but I will try to express my attitude to the questions.
>
Good enough.

>> 
>> 1.How are you going to promote the representation of Individuals in the
DNSO?
>
>An important part of the DNSO is the DNSO GA.
>
>My experience withe the DNSO GA is that "it is not working, and it has
>to be fixed". Roberto and Harald is doing an excellent job as chair and
>co-chair under the given conditions, but I think ICANN should take the
>initiative to review the DNSO GA, including representation
>(Organizations and Individuals).
>
Sorry , Alf, but that is a wishy-washy answer.
I see no position that you are willing to take.

>> Are you going to actively support the admission of a separate constituency
>> for this group?
>
>I think the constituencies also should undergo a continous review. I
>will not myself propose a separate constituency for Individuals (I
>assume this is what you are refering to). But if the question comes up,
>I will take active part. 

Again, what part would you play so actively?
And what do you mean by "If the question comes up"?  The petition for an
IDNO constituency has been in front of the Board since April last year!

Right now my position is that the At-Large is
>an oportunity for Individuals. 

Individual Domain Name owners disagree with that position, I think.
Domain Name policy is made by the Names Council of the DNSO. 
Domain Name holders need to be represented on it.

DNSO is an oportunity for Supporters of
>Domain Names. Yes, Individuals can also be supporters of Domain Names,
>and Supporters of Domain  Names can be Individuals.
>
Hmmm.

>> 
>> 2. What are you proposing to do about  further balancing the DNSO's
>> representativeness?
>
>I am not sure if I understand the question correctly. DNSO is supposed
>to give advice to the ICANN Board. The DNSO GA has to be "fixed" to be
>able to sort out all the views and conclude with advice to the Board
>based on consensus. The DNSO selects 3 Board members. I am right now not
>able to say if the numer "3" is too small or too big. I think rotation
>of board members between Geographical Regions is good, and perhaps one
>could also consider rotation between constituencies.
>
What the question refers to, Alf, is the makeup of the DNSO constituencies,
as they were decreed by the interim ICANN Board in Singapore.
These "constituencies" are in many ways repeats of the same interests:
Registrars, Registries, IP interests, "Business", with Domain Name holders
so far only represented by one struggling constituency, the NCDNHC. Even
there discussions can easily be dominated by the same voices that already
have so much disproportional influence in the rest of the DNSO.

The DNSO , in order to be a credible and wise policy advisor to the ICANN
Board, needs to evenly balance the interests of those who make money out of
the DN holders and the DH holders themselves.

>> 
>> 3. What specific checks do you propose on the powers of the Names Council?
>
>The NC should have the power to decide if the discussions and proposals
>from the GA is founded on the grounds of ICANN's values (consensus).

In other words, a resolution such as adopted by the GA in Yokohama, should
still be filtered by the NC?

The
>NC should have the power to formulate exact advices to the ICANN Board,
>based on input from the DNSO GA. 

And if it does that, should it not be accountable to the GA in how it
fulfils that task?  At the moment this check is lacking.

The GA should have the possibility to
>add "footnotes" to the NC advices, in such a way that the Board receives
>such information.
>
> 
>> 4. Why don't you want to get paid?
>
>Are you talking to me? 

Not in particular. I would ideally like all candidates (especially the
self-nominated ones) to reply to this question.

I never said that. I want that ICANN should pay
>my expenses if I am elected. I can understand that there will be a lot
>of mistrust and indictments if companies or other groups are paying
>Board members.
>
I am not talking about expenses only but about a credible remuneration for
credible Board members. Self-nomination implies acceptance of the "expenses
-only" policy.

>> 
>> Being an informed ICANN At Large Director is a full time job. Who will pay
>> you for your livelihood?
>
>Being an informed ICANN At Large Director is an honour, because a lot of
>people have given you their vote.

It is only an honour if a lot of informed voters have give you the vote.
Please inform the voters more.

If I am elected, I will not give up my
>current employment. 

Then I'm afraid you will not be able to devote all your time to ICANN.
Ideally the ICANN members should vote for a director who is willing and
able to give all his professional time to the task. 
There is already the fear that the Board will continue to be driven by
"ICANN staff"  and by the policy advice from the Names Council, without
being able to independently study and absorb the issues.

>I am a full time Director at UNINETT FAS A/S, a non
>commercial company in Norway. An ICANN Director is elected based on
>personal qualifications, and is obliged to be loyal to ICANN when acting
>as a Board member, and not to his or her company or to other groups.
>There may be cases where there is a conflict of interest, and ICANN has
>defined a detailed process in order to handle this in a best possible
>way.
>
>> 
>> I think that's enough to get started on.
>
>I hope was able to exprees my opinions.
>
>> 
>> Candidates who are serious about speaking out for the Individual DN owners
>> and micro-business ("mom& pop" businesses), should not hesitate to join the
>> idno-discuss list and copy their replies and comments there.
>> 
>
>You asked a lot of questions about DNSO matters.

Yes. My involvement with ICANN has been concentrated on the DNSO as the
most important policy making body and I would really want an ICANN At Large
director who will make the reform of the DNSO his priority.

I had expected more
>questions along the lines:
>
>- How will you contribute to an organization of the At-Large membership
>  such that all individual views can be taken into account and presented
>  in a structured way as advices to the ICANN Board?
>
If you can answer that question in a credible eway, please go ahead. :-)

>- What is your view on an "At-Large Council"?
>
I thought that idea had been sunk after Santiago.  What about your views on
an all -powerful nominating committee? :)

>- Do you think the 5 At-Large Board members (later 9) is enough power
>  to the At-Large membership?
>
That is almost like a question from the candidate to the voters. ;)
But please, by all means let us hear your opinion on that.

BTW, I am still hoping for Jeanette's replies and those of other
self-nominated candidates with small egos.

Time is short.





--Joop Teernstra LL.M.--  
the Cyberspace Association and 
the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
http://www.idno.org