[dns-operations] What is the most pressing need for DNS these days?

[John S. Quarterman]

> >> So stand for the Board Brad. Put your money where your mouth is
> >> (figuratively speaking).
> >
> > Not a bad idea.
> >
> > And how about you, Jim?
> 
> And you, John? ;-)

I might.  That partly depends on who else will, since there's
not much point in having just one new member who thinks differently.

> Remember that the process includes more than just the ICANN Board.  
> There are a number of Supporting Organization positions being filled  
> at the same time, and SO's have an enormous amount of influence on  
> the outcome of Board decisions. Specifically:
> 
> The Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Council
> The Interim At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC)
> The Country Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO) Council

Thus far I haven't seen anything that convinces me that those organizations
have real influence on actual decisions.

> Note that the deadline has just been extended until August 1, 2006.
> 
> Disclaimer: I am on the ICANN Nominating Committee, but this nudge to  
> submit Statements of Interest implies no opinion regarding the  
> suitability of any candidate, it is merely(!) a push to get as many  
> good and well-qualified candidates as possible involved in the  
> process. As Jim said (figuratively ;-)), put your money where your  
> mouth is.
> 
> http://www.icann.org/committees/nom-comm/formal-call-2006.html

> PS: As a second term member of the NOM-COMM I take exception (and get  
> pretty pissed) when I see statements like "this process is so totally  
> rigged" with no facts to back them up. I take those attacks  
> personally. Of course I can only speak for the 2005 and 2006 Committees.

I wasn't going to respond to this, but actually I think it's one of
the main points.  People involved with ICANN should expect to get criticism,
some of it quite pointed, along with occasional praise.  An organization
that legally blocked one of its own board members from examining its books
until a judge laughed it out of court is not one that is going to be
be given the benefit of the doubt on transparency and accountability.
Even if we ignore that sort of history, simply because ICANN is involved
in an arena of high-profile politics (e.g., perceived U.S. control over
the international Internet), transparency and accountability would be
most useful.  Personal offense is not going to make people believe
that ICANN is now doing things correctly.  Ongoing actual transparency
and accountability, such as posting working documents and board minutes
in a timely manner (does ICANN now do this?), having board members
answer questions, etc. might eventually convince people of that.

-jsq