[ncdnhc-discuss] Re: [ncdnhc-announce] Transparency: How we voted in the ICANN Board election

[YJ Park]

My apology for belated response to all.
However, it is quite important issue I feel forced to reply to.

> I want to explain why I voted for Paul Kane. YJ also voted
> for Kane, and Vany voted for Abril. I will let YJ and
> Vany speak for themselves. 

Thank you, Milton.

> Neither Paul Kane nor Amadeu would be great champions of
> the NCDNHC's positions or interests. However, my 
> experience on the Names Council has been that Paul 
> operates in a very consultative, inclusive fasion. He is accused
> of being a "politician" and that is actually true - like a good
> politician, he listens to people around and tries to do something
> that is popular with all of them. 

I agreed upon Milton's observation and I told Paul to the last minute 
about my reservation about his position. I guess he would not expect 
my vote for him due to my strong concern in his position.

> I apologize to Joanna Lane especially and also to Jefsey M.
> for their failure to receive any votes. YJ and I initially planned
> to vote for Joanna in the first round, and force the election
> into a second round. However, it became evident that Amadeu
> might have enough to win in the second round, because a
> vote from the registrars would be released. So we felt that
> we had to vote for Kane in the first round and hope he
> got the needed 11 votes. 

During Montevideo GA's interaction session with Board candidates,
I asked Joanna whether she has some strategies to implement her
candidate promises as DNSO Board member together with other
Board members who may have quite different views on her promises, 
which I thought as most critical factor even though her promises sounds
fitting to NCDNHC's interests.

Taking opportunity of this, I would like to share my concern in
DNSO election and the relationship between the DNSO Board
members and DNSO constituencies.

First, lack of interaction between DNSO Board members and
DNSO constituencies.

There have been efforts to arrange a meeting between DNSO
Board members and NCDNHC for the past meetings. FYI,
Alejandro Pixanty, Amadeu Abril Abril and Jonathan Cohen
have shown their efforts to turn up in NCDNHC meetings despite
their tight schedules.

However, unfortunately, NCDNHC could not manage to have
Amadeu in its past meetings yet and hope to have more chances 
with Amadeu together with other Board members more in the coming 
NCDNHC meetings.

Second, lack of coordination between Names Council members
and NCDNHC members.

Admitting that it should have had more pre-coordination between
constituency members and constituency representatives, I want to
refer to the recent ccTLD constituency coordination with regard to
DNSO Board election.

ccTLD managers(only members) had a closed meeting prior to DNSO 
Board election to let their representatives know who they should support 
for and their decision was delivered to the Names Concil who voted as 
it was decided by the members. Of course, there was again controversial 
point could be made since it could be described as a limited consensus 
among the people who could physically attend the Montevideo meeting.

However, still this model sounds a lot better than no-coordination.

Seeking your understanding that it was really difficult for me to measure
a consensus among members feeling conflicted whether ten or so vocal 
vocies which started to be posted just before election should be regarded 
as NCDNHC's consensus.

Lastly, I would like to let Amadeu know that there have been 
explicit supports from some members of NCDNHC wrt his candidacy
hoping this will lead him decide to communicate with NCDNHC in a 
more frequent and open manner.

Even though I have had reservation about Paul's position in general
due to his too sophisticated speech, I would like to appreciate Paul for
his patience and efforts to clarify his position.

Regards,
YJ

PS. It is time to wonder whether we can have DNSO Board election
      next year after ICANN restructure.......