Page History

...

Candidate has not yet submitted answers.

Pierre Dandjinou

Thanks to my colleagues from APRALO and greetings to Hong Xue!

...

Candidate has not yet submitted answers.

Pierre Dandjinou

As the Independent Objector mechanism is meant  for objecting to anomalous applications on behalf of Internet users, and particularly in the public interest, I see it as a necessary  and required safeguard in the process. This will promote more independence in the dispute resolution process, while also addressing risks to the process by ensuring that the proposed TLDs that are clearly encompassed by the limited Community-based and morality & public Order objection standards are not entered into the root. Because the At large community represents the users at large, I will be in favour of a close relationship of the AC with the process of the selection of the Independent objector.

...

Candidate has not yet submitted answers.

Pierre Dandjinou

It is a pity the ALAC liaison to the Board is being replaced by an at large Director elected. As per the bylaws of iCANN, once a Director is appointed, he normally should not report to his/her constituency and only ‘defends’ the Interest of ICANN. I think we should continue to press for the r establishment of the liaison’s position as it’s crucial that a mechanism is still available for streamlining the community’s view to the Board…Unless this new At large director to occupy the No 15 seat, is given such a prerogative to serve as a liaison and also report back to the ALAC..But for this , a review of the bylaws must occur, and I could push to this if elected as the At large Director.

...

Question to Alan Greenberg from Sivasubramanian M, from APRALO, but question posed as an individual

As more and more at Large leadership positions are filled by people from the business constituency, It is becoming very important for ALAC and at Large to preserve at Large as a user's constituency to TRULY balance the business stakeholder group. Any leadership position within ALAC and at Large should be occupied by persons with ample concern for the end user.

My impression of your participation in the Post Expiry Domain Name working group and the Vertical Integration working group is that you are soft on the Domain Industry and muted and weak on the real issues of concerns to users. If elected to represent at Large to take the only available seat for at Large representation in the Board, wouldn't you be equally soft on broader issues of greater importance? You have a rich experience and an impressive background, but wouldn't it be apt for you seek to be elected to the ICANN Board as a Business nominee rather than as a user's nominee? 

If I am wrong in my impression, would you be be kind enough to clarify on your choice of seeking this position as from at Large? In other words, would you list arguments as to why ALAC members and leaders should back you formally and informally as a candidate?

EURALO

The following 8 questions were prepared by Avri Doria on behalf of EURALO:

1. To what extent do you think that the ALAC should be equivalent in its influence within ICANN to the GAC.  Should the by-laws be changed to give the ALAC the same right of advice as the GAC has?

2. How do you plan to balance your commitment to doing what you believe is best for ICANN as a California corporation with your role as a representative of the members of the At-Large?  How do you propose handling it when your vote runs counter to the advice of the ALAC and At-Large.

3. What do you plan to do about the Culture of Secrecy that exists in ICANN.  What role does the Board have to play in making ICANN more transparent and accountable?

4. What degree of oversight do you think the Board should exert over the Staff and its activities.

5. Do you accept that ICANN remains a US based corporation or do you have a plan for increasing its International status.

6. Do you agree with the current salary levels of the senior managers in ICANN.  Do you think the Board should change the levels of compensation to be more in keeping with the non-profit of ICANN.  If so, how do you plan seeing this dealt with?

7. What is your plan for any excess funds that may be derived from new gTLD auctions? 

8. Do you think it is necessary for ICANN to make serious adjustments to the new gTLD process and application fees in order for it to be possible for there to be applicants from the developing economies.  what sort of changes would you be in favor of seeing?

The following 3 questions were prepared by Wolf Ludwig on behalf of EURALO:

1. Please present a precise definition of the "public interest".

2. What would you say is the relevance of the "public interest" in the ICANN context?

3. What is the relevance of the PI for the candidates and how best it could be pursued by them (once seated on the Board)?

Questions to specific candidates prepared by Adam Peake on behalf of EURALO:

Pierre, Sebastien:

I understand you are both involved in potential applications for new gTLDs: Pierre, dot AFRICA (perhaps already controversial, with rival applications in play), Sebastien perhaps a few projects. If I am wrong about this, you have no involvement, please accept my apologies.

However, if correct, my concern is whether you will be able to participate fully in discussions about new gTLDs. I think we can be sure issues arising from the new gTLD program will be among the most important ICANN will face over the coming 2-3 years.

If selected as At Large Director will you stop any involvement with new gTLD application?  Or how would you handle the possibility of having to recuse yourself from some or all discussions? Can a Director be involved in both an application and making policy that affects that or all applications?

To be fair: Alan, are you involved with any potential/planned gTLD applications?

A general question, but first for Alan.

The ATRT's proposed recommendations include:

*"ICANN should establish \[by INSERT DATE\] formal mechanisms for identifying the collective skill-set required by the ICANN Board including such skills as public policy, finance, strategic planning, corporate governance, negotiation, and dispute resolution. Emphasis should be placed upon ensuring the Board has the skills and experience to effectively provide oversight of ICANN operations consistent with the global public interest and deliver best practice in corporate governance."*

1. What skill sets do you feel currently missing from the board and how will your skills fill those gaps?

2. Please describe your experience with the following, as relevant to ICANN's mission "public policy, finance, strategic planning, corporate governance, negotiation, and dispute resolution".

LACRALO

Question from Carlos:
We heard skills and capacities of his own voices. But, and the direct question is: Why not the other two candidates?  What are the wiknesses weaknesses of the other two candidates?

NARALO

Questions for all Candidates:

1. How do you define "end-user," "consumer," "registrant," and where do those terms intersect?

2. Describe your level of satisfaction with ICANN's current performance in responding to end-user and registrant concerns.

3. Is the current speed of the new  gTLD creation process happening too fast, too slow, or at the right pace?

4. What is, in your opinion, the scope of ICANN? What are the limits of its authority?

5. As a Director, what would be your interest in the Registrar Accreditation Agreement?

6. Describe, in as much detail as possible, your assessment of WHOIS, specifically stating your opinions on
    - the desired balance between registrant privacy and registrant accountability
    - the suitability of WHOIS to accomplish its intended purpose
    - whether WHOIS needs to be fixed, replaced, discarded or left untouched

7.  What initiatives will you *personally* undertake to increase ICANN's transparency and accountability?

8. Do end-users and registrants have rights within ICANN? Should they? If you answered yes to either, state how you would encourage the rest of the board to effect this.

9. As you replace the accountable At-Large liaison to the Board in a role that is explicitly not accountable, describe the relationship you intend to have with ICANN's At-Large Community.
    - Are you prepared to make any commitments to levels of engagement with At-Large?
    - Are you willing to resign if incapable of meeting those committmentscomittments?

10. How would you describe the "maturity" of ICANN's At-Large infrastructure?
    - What is the effect of this on ICANN policy-making?
    - What would you do to improve this?

11. What is your analysis of the recent Board decision regarding vertical integration, specifically from the point of view of Internet registrants and end-users?

12. All three candidates have, at least once, been appointed to their At-Large positions rather than chosen by the community. How does this impact your view of ICANN and its relationship with the public?

13. What is the best possible outcome of this election process? What is the worst possible outcome?

14.  Do you consider yourself a "people person"?  In other words, do you like people and do you make yourself available because you enjoy spending time listening to people's ideas and concerns?

15. How many hours of a time commitment per week do you expect will be needed of you as an ICANN Board of Director?   Can you dedicate more than that?

16. Are you a  founder, officer, leader or executive management of an organization  planning to submit a new TLD application to ICANN? And if so, how does that affect your ability to represent end-users at the Board?

Questions to specific candidates:

...