Re: [gnso-idn-wg] Chair of GNSO IDN working group

[Mawaki Chango <ki_chango@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hello Bruce,

thank you for the reminder which is really useful and helpful. I have seen and 
appreciated your high commitment in chairing the council in a neutral and 
banlanced way. My main point was not that much to isolate the fact of being 
involved in the industry, but jointly with prior long standing participation in 
the specific debate at hand, from that point of view. In other words, I am not 
quite sure if someone like Ram Moham does not have entrenched 
positions/opinions from that legacy, which I would see as a hinderance for a 
neutral chairing. While the candidate I've nominated is not, as far as I know, 
from any specific constituency, and has a good understanding of the issues both 
policy-wise and technically, as much as it can be expected from any one of us. 
I think I made my point; if nodody else on the WG sees it that way, then I rest 
my case.

Regards,

Mawaki


----- Original Message ----
From: Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: gnso-idn-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, November 2, 2006 2:34:39 AM
Subject: RE: [gnso-idn-wg] Chair of GNSO IDN working group


Hello Mawaki,

> Your candidate is a PAC member (from what I've understood 
> from Bruce's nomination), active participant of the registry 
> industry, and involved in the IDN debates for years, etc. Is 
> that all what we've got? 

Just a reminder - I am chair of the GNSO, an active participant in the
registrar industry, and have been involved in domain name debates for
years.

I think any member of the GNSO (on either supply or user side) should be
considered as a chair for an activity within the GNSO on the basis of
basic criteria such as:

- has sufficient time to devote to the task

- has a deep understanding of the task

- is capable of chairing in a neutral manner

- has the ability to interact with other ICANN groups working on the
task

- is capable of explaining things in layman's language

I don't think knowledge or involvement in the industry should be a
reason against picking a particular candidate.

The key thing here is neutrality.  Ie If you have a strong view on a
particular policy and want to convince others of that view - it is
better to be a participant rather than a chair.  Generally if you are
from a particular constituency, you should let others speak for that
constituency where possible when you are acting in the role as chair.

Regards,
Bruce Tonkin