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

["Griffini Giorgio" <grigio@mediapoint.it>]

From:           	"Roberto Gaetano" <roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com>
> Giorgio,
> 
> >From your answer to Joop:
> 
> >
> >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.
> > [.. omissis..]
> 
> I do not reply to the "regional constituencies" issue, because this is not 
> the appropriate forum. It is an internal DNSO matter, with a debate already 
> going on, and I would like to discuss it over there.
> 

No problems at all,  but I see a lot of debate here in icann-europe on building 
a sort of intermediate body for supporting a regional director. We may call it 
as we like but it seems more or less like a 'sort of' constituency.

> About the number of DNSO Directors, may I just notice that we are taking the 
> risk of having AtLarge Directors that are just DNSO Directors in disguise: 
> see the list of NomCom candidates. With all due respect to Alf, Olivier, and 
> the others that I don't know, all five belong to groups represented in the 
> DNSO Constituencies, and could easily be elected as DNSO Directors.
> 

You are right.... and this open another question.... It is not my intention to be 
polemic but I see there are few candidates here in @large which I think they 
may had a better place to candidate for directorship in some DNSO 
constituency. They have all right to candidate themselves here, I agree ... but 
it would be nice and interesting to know why they decided to run here 
instead of places they are more familiar with.

> >
> >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.
> 
> Please allow me to be polemic, just take it as a joke.
> So, shall I assume that, if you will be elected to the ICANN Board, you will 
> be in favour of limiting the term of the NC representatives "by decision of 
> the Board"?
> 
Tsk.. Tsk... I'll take this as a joke (for now...)
I was specifically asked about the NC and I was not talking about a 'board 
action'.  If you will ask me about @large director terms I will answer in the 
same manner. I personally dislike that any people stay too much in charge 
on a seat because this would allow to build a parallel network of relations 
between people - which have nothing to do with the corporation structure - 
more or less supporting/helping themselves when they do something wrong 
by mistake or by intention. A short term will lower such risk and will allow for 
more transparency. 
 
Best regards
Giorgio Griffini