AW: [council] Advance questions for the 28 Feb call with Rita

[Tim Ruiz]

Thanks Tom and Adrian. I've given this a lot thought, reviewed my
questions, and prefer not to withdraw them. If this is just going to be
a job interview, then I'm not really interested in the excercise.

My first question does not interject any specific viewpoint. There are a
wide range of views on the Council regarding the extent to which "prior
rights" should be considered in policy matters. But the fact is that it
is has been and will continue to be a contentious area in many policy
matters we consider. I think it's fair to solicit the views/position on
it of any Board candidate the Council is considering.

My second question uses as an example an issue where the Council's view
are already well known. Regardless of how things come out on that
specifically, I think there is a bigger picture issue that we need to be
thinking about - how to resolve issues that do not neatly fit into one
SO cubby hole or another. 

Avri's question gets to the very core of what the GNSO is all about. I
am keenly interested in knowing the position on that of any candidate
the Council is going to be putting on the Board.

Finally, the Council put forward one candidate, the incumbent. We all
must be fairly satisified with her work and conduct on the Board or we'd
have been scrambling to find other candidates. So it's understandable
why some of our questions may hit more directly on specific issues. 


Tim 

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: AW: [council] Advance questions for the 28 Feb call with Rita
From: "Thomas Keller" <tom at 1und1.de>
Date: Thu, February 28, 2008 3:07 am
To: "'Adrian Kinderis'" <adrian at ausregistry.com.au>, "'Tim Ruiz'"
<tim at godaddy.com>
Cc: "'Chuck Gomes'" <cgomes at verisign.com>, "'Council GNSO'"
<council at gnso.icann.org>

I think Adrian touched on a very good point. As I already indicated I
will
not be to join the call but I agree that the questions should not
be on any specific policy topics that we have on our plate right now
(and
who knows what will come up in the future) but rather on how the
interaction
between the GNSO and its representative on the Board will be and what
our
expectations are in this regard.

Best,

tom

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org]
Im
Auftrag von Adrian Kinderis
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 28. Februar 2008 06:38
An: Tim Ruiz
Cc: Chuck Gomes; Council GNSO
Betreff: RE: [council] Advance questions for the 28 Feb call with Rita


Tim,

I see it similar to the role that we perform for the Registrar
Constituency.

We have many diverse views that we must represent. It is our job to
ensure
that those views are represented (that in itself is the
challenge) and that we put forward a collective opinion when possible.

I wasn't chosen to represent the RC because of my views on tasting or
transfers. Moreover, that I would put successfully forward the views of
my
Constituents.

I believe we should expect the same for Rita.

My questions would be more the following;

1. Rita, you have been ill and away from occasional phone calls and
recent
ICANN meetings, do you expect this to continue?
2. I would like to see a regular (monthly) report from our
representative on
Board issues and where she stands on them (potentially with time
allotted on
calls and in meetings) 3. I would like to see our representative present
at
our "Council days"
at ICANN meetings (where Board commitments permit).

And then more specifically;

4. How can we better progress outstanding issues (domain tasting,
transfers
GNSO reform etc) with the Board?
5. How can we better communicate (through you?) to the Board to get them
to
understand these issues and their importance?


Thanks.

Adrian Kinderis
Managing Director
AusRegistry Group Pty Ltd
Level 8, 10 Queens Road
Melbourne. Victoria Australia. 3004
Ph: +61 3 9866 3710
Fax: +61 3 9866 1970
Email: adrian at ausregistry.com
Web: www.ausregistrygroup.com

The information contained in this communication is intended for the
named
recipients only. It is subject to copyright and may contain legally
privileged and confidential information and if you are not an intended
recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or take any action in
reliance
on it. If you have received this communication in error, please delete
all
copies from your system and notify us immediately.



-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim at godaddy.com]
Sent: Thursday, 28 February 2008 3:42 PM
To: Adrian Kinderis
Cc: Chuck Gomes; Council GNSO
Subject: RE: [council] Advance questions for the 28 Feb call with Rita

Adrian,

I don't completely agree. If we take your view to the full extent then
what
is the GNSO doing electing any Board members at all? Or the ccNSO, etc.
I
think it is at least fair to understand what if any views a candidate
may
have going into it. I'd like to at least know what bias one way or the
other, if any, may exist. And also, just how well informed or familiar
he/she is with subject matter.

This is not your typical board election process. We are not shareholders
in
a real sense. And there is no process by which a Board member can be
removed
save not reelecting them at the end of their term. I think the questions
are
fair. Your concerns get more to what each one of us does with the
answers,
something we should discuss with our constituents.


Tim

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [council] Advance questions for the 28 Feb call with Rita
From: "Adrian Kinderis" <adrian at ausregistry.com.au>
Date: Wed, February 27, 2008 9:09 pm
To: "Chuck Gomes" <cgomes at verisign.com>, "Council GNSO"
<council at gnso.icann.org>


All,

I am a little confused as to the purpose of the call with Rita.

Is it merely an opportunity for us to lobby our personal issues with
Rita in
the hope that she will push them on the Board or is it about
understanding
how she will act a an effective conduit as the GNSO representative on
the
Board?

I would have thought the later. Unless, of course, this is a
presidential
election where we are voting for the candidate's policies and not the
candidate.

I personally don't want to make her feel that she has to respond
positively
to such requests otherwise risk not being voted in.

Surely, we need her to ensure she will be making herself available at
every
opportunity to hear the "collective" of the GNSO Council and ensure that
the
topics that mean something to us are rightfully and appropriately
managed
with respect to the Board.

Finding out what Rita thinks about a personal gripe or position I have
doesn't help me understand whether she will take a "collective" view to
the
Board and how she will be a good representative.

The GNSO Council is about consensus and managing views, not lobbying one
Board member to push one view (or am I wrong!?).

Just my thoughts and forgive me if they are misplaced.

Regards,

Adrian Kinderis
Chief Executive Officer
AusRegistry International Pty Ltd
Level 8, 10 Queens Road
Melbourne. Victoria Australia. 3004
Ph: +61 3 9866 3710
Fax: +61 3 9866 1970
Email: adrian at ausregistry.com
Web: www.ausregistryinternational.com

The information contained in this communication is intended for the
named
recipients only. It is subject to copyright and may contain legally
privileged and confidential information and if you are not an intended
recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or take any action in
reliance
on it. If you have received this communication in error, please delete
all
copies from your system and notify us immediately.