Re: [ICANN-EU] Answer to Joop Teernstra by a candidate

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

At 02:17 28/08/00 +0200, Griffini Giorgio wrote:

>
>I greatly agree with the admission of a sort of IDNO constistuency because
it 
>is big noticeable miss of the DNSO. 

Thank you for that.

>Personally speaking, being an individual, I'm also currently eligible for
taking 
>part of such constituency but I have to remember all of us that a director 
>(DNSO or @Large elected) should have no committment to any group and 
>should serve ICANN corporation interests. In my view @Large directors 
>should take decisions based on their background and knowledge of their 
>regional culture and views for any kind issues which may vary between non-
>profit,governmental,business and also individuals issues. But cannot/should 
>not be the voice of only just one group.
>
Fair enough. But the ICANN Board members are the ones deciding collectively
on the admittance of new constituencies in the DNSO.
All we ask is your support for such a decision in the Board meeting that
decides that. In the interest of ICANN itself.
After that , the Individual Domain Name holders will have their own voice
in the DNSO and no ICANN directors are expected to be a voice for that group.


>2. What are you proposing to do about  further balancing the DNSO's 
>representativeness? 
>
>Actually,in addition to sub-optimal representation of individuals, there
is also 
>the miss of not having regional constituency because it is supposed that 
>such representativity will come from @Large membership. 

This is not quite so, as all DNSO constituencies have to meet the
regionality requirements for their selection of names Council candidates.
This has actually given problems to several of them (not enough qualified
candidates from  each region) and they have asked for dispensation of these
rules.

The point of regional representation that you raise is a valid one for debate.
Are we happy with the way ICANN has carved up the world?
Does Israel really belong in asia/pacific?
Does Europe, once it is represented as a region (including the caucasian
republics?), need to address internal regionalism (and representation) as
well? Where does it end?

>I think this is wrong as long as there are no intermediate bodies between
the 
>@large director and people who elect them. This mean that there will be 
>difficulties for a regional @large director to have a consistent place where 
>'smell' what is the 'regional mood' about any kind of issue.

This is even worse for expatriates such as myself, who can be active and
known in their area of residence, but who will have to campaign or support
candidates in the region of their citizenship.
We will get used to it, but in the beginning, it's a pain.

>If such body must be built I think it is better to build it into the DNSO
(after 
>all we are talking about the 'core' business of ICANN: domain names) by 
>allowing for regional constituency there and consistently extend the number 
>of directors the DNSO may elect. 
>
This would mean a complete rewrite of the rules for the DNSO. Perhaps a
welcome exercise, as it would allow for a revision of the powerless GA.
But I am afraid that regional constituencies are a can of worms.
The final decision (by the ICANN Board) on the geographical boundaries will
allow for a process of gerrymandering even worse than what we have now.
Too much energy will go into this.
The internet is about the absence of boundaries, isn't it?  


>3. What specific checks do you propose on the powers of the Names 
>Council?
>
>I would likely favor shorter terms for member of NC (1 year with a non-
>reeligibility clause of 1 year) in order to allow to rotate
responsabilities in a 
>more dynamic way. Anyway, I think that some additional more deep 
>adjustment to overall structure should be done if regional constituencies
are 
>being taken inside DNSO.
>
But what good would regional constituencies do, if they are still IP,
registrar and registry interests, heavily balanced against the interests of
Individual DN owners?

>4. Why don't you want to get paid?
>
>I'm used to put efforts in something I like to even if I'm not payed for.
>BTW I expect (and ICANN does) to be refunded for non trivial travel and 
>accomodation expenses incurred while exercising duties as director. 
>I'm an individual not backed by any organization or employer and I cannot 
>really afford more than 1 overseas travels per year on my own budget.   
>
>Being an informed ICANN At Large Director is a full time job. Who will pay 
>you for your livelihood?
>
>I do not consider being 'informed' as a thing to be payed for by someone 
>other than me because such 'knowledge' will be used only by me while 
>forming an opinion on some topic. And such sort of knowledge and 
>experience it will anyway stay with me. Maybe it would be best if ICANN 
>allows, for directors, some money to be devoted to such activities in
order to 
>alleviate such pressure. But there will be other concerns doing so, then 
>IMHO it is ok even this way.
>About who will pay my livelihood while being a director I will prefer, as 
>already told elsewhere, to rearrange for an half-duty service with my
current 
>employer if load of 'being informed' is going to be too heavvy. 
>
Half of your time for your own account is a generous offer, Giorgio. Thank
you!



--Joop--
www.idno.org