[ICANN-EU] Re: The Key Questions for Jeanette Hoffmann

["Jeanette Hofmann" <jeanette@medea.wz-berlin.de>]

> >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 
practically.  

> >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
> participate.
 
> 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
> delay.
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. 

jeanette