Re: [registrars] Nominations for Chair.
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
|