[registrars] Nominations for Chair.

[Jordyn A. Buchanan]

Thanks for the vote of confidence, Jay.  Like Bhavin, I don't approach 
the position with one or two or three specific agenda items, but I do 
think that I can help the constituency be more productive and 
effective.

Bhavin has already identified a number of specific issues that deserve 
attention in the coming months.  I won't attempt a similar dump of ten 
minutes' worth of thoughts because if nothing else it will prove that 
Bhavin is apparently a much faster typist than me.  Instead of 
grappling with specific issues, I'd like to suggest some changes to the 
way that we approach issues that I believe will help us be a more 
effective constituency regardless of the particular set of issues that 
we turn our attention to at any given moment.

Most importantly, I think that we need to work on resolving 
inter-registrar conflicts internally so that we can have a clear voice 
when dealing with ICANN, with other constituencies, and with the world 
at large.  There is often a perception from outside the constituency 
that the registrars are divided  .  This allows other groups, who are 
either effective at rallying around specific causes or basically follow 
the lead of one or two people, to wield a disproportionate amount of 
power within ICANN.  It is time for the constituency and its 
representatives to be heard as the voice of the most important and 
influential group within ICANN.

There are obviously topics on which it is hard to gain consensus, and 
companies with different business models will often have strong 
opinions that seem difficult to reconcile.  However, the penalty for 
failing to find a solution within our own community is often that we 
either have something imposed upon us or we are forced to develop a 
consensus solution in conjunction with many outside parties.  If it is 
difficult to devise a solution that makes everyone happy with all of 
the registrars at the table, it is certainly no easier to do so when we 
add seats for everyone within ICANN who wants to chime in.

This approach also relates to our interaction with various registries.  
Too often, registries seem able to slide unfavorable changes into place 
by finding a few registrars to go along with a change, thereby forcing 
the rest of us to eventually follow along in the hopes of staying 
competitive.  We should work together to prevent unfavorable changes 
that effect all of us negatively.  One small example of this is the EPP 
1.0 implementation group that was discussed in KL and that Eric posted 
about recently.  This sort of dialogue is important, but is hopefully 
just a start.  Ideally speaking, we could create the sort of 
environment where registries reached out to registrars on a pro-active 
basis as part of change control before any changes in operation are 
initiated.

In addition to working together, we need to develop responses more 
quickly.  We need to have better clarity and a streamlined process for 
how constituency statements for task forces and other matters get 
drafted, discussed and approved.  We should always allow ourselves 
sufficient time to make sure that we can provide statements that 
reflect the views of the entire constituency, but then we need to make 
sure that we hold ourselves accountable to make sure that we deliver 
those statements when they can do the most good.

I'm certain that others (both those running for Chair and the many 
members of the consituency who are not) will have many additional 
thoughts about how we can continue to improve the constituency.  Of 
course, as several people have pointed out, all of these ideas depend 
on a Chair with the time and capability to make them happen.  I believe 
I have the track record as a leader and reformer to effectively serve 
the constituency.  In the transition between the DNSO and the GNSO, I 
argued forcefully for votes to be evenly allocated between the 
contracted parties and the others in the GNSO.  I led an effort to 
change the Names Council's rules to allow any member of the community 
to chair a Task Force, instead of the usual suspects from the Council 
who had controlled most of the previous Task Forces.  And I have 
chaired two Task Forces myself, and in both cases we produced reports 
that embodied real consensus and real change around difficult issues.

The most important lesson that I have taken away from my experiences in 
ICANN so far, though, is that it is impossible for one person to 
unilaterally bring about progress in a consensus-driven environment.  
This means that you need to be part of a group that at least believes 
in the same principles at the start of the process.  So I hope that if 
people do choose to vote for me that they will do so with a clear 
understanding of these goals and a commitment to moving forward 
together.

(Sorry, that comes off a little cheesy, but it's true.  Regardless of 
who ends up chairing the constituency, I hope we can work together to 
tackle many of the worthy issues that have been discussed in recent 
days, and I appreciate the opportunity to be considered as a Chair as 
we move ahead.)

Jordyn


On Aug 31, 2004, at 2:43 PM, Jay Westerdal wrote:

> I have worked with both Jordyn Buchanan and Bhavin Turakhia and they
> they are both great canidates for this position. So both would have
> my vote at this point.
>
> But as I can't vote for both, can the canidates tell me 2 things about
> what they would change in the constituency, and why?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jay Westerdal
> Name Intelligence, Inc.
> http://www.nameintelligence.com
>