Membership interview with the candidates - options

[Nicolas Adam]

I suggest one thread (subject line) par question. Could be useful also
to distinguish posts in the subject line so that people running against
each other would answer under the same thread.

Some questions that could be added or tweaked into other questions.

-- How long a time do you think is ok for defendant in a UDRP process to
have?

-- What are your views on gTLD enlargment? Any comment on the plan as it
is. What do you think would be the best resolution of the
registry-escrow 'problem'?

-- Propose something out of the ordinary for ICANN and/or NCSG.

Nicolas, NCUC

On 9/28/2011 9:08 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
> Thank you for this suggestion.
>
> I do not understand why it would not be just as useful for the members of the NCSG to send their questions directly to the list, have me collate them into a few email threads and then have all of the candidates respond directly to the list.
>
> In any case, I would not have the time to do the process you suggest in the next few days.  I apologize for not having the bandwidth.
>
> It is turning out that I have not found a time that all candidates can make.  I will keep working on this.
>
> In the meantime, to make sure we have some debate, I am suggesting that we do the email list debate, and if we can schedule a phone call where most candidates can make we do so as a follow-up.
>
> But, in order to do that, we need questions.  I will start the list of questions taking some from previous discussions we have on this list:
>
> - How does one achieve greater participation from NCSG members.  What is the responsibility of the Chair/council member in the effort to achieve greater participation
>
> - What are the candidates views on the meaning of non commercial presence and activities in the GNSO
>
> - What do you foresee as the most important issue for the NCSG during the next year.  2 years?
>
> - How do you see your role as a representative of the NCSG that elected you.  In what way are you to be held accountable to the NCSG membership?
>
> others? deletions?  changes?
>
>
> avri
>
>
>
> On 28 Sep 2011, at 15:19, MEDA Shefqet wrote:
>
>> Hi Avri,
>> I think the best solution would be if the NCSG members (who want) will send questions to your address, then you collect them and forward to candidates. The responses of candidates also be sent to your email address. When you will get all the answers in due course then be forwarded to all NCSG members .
>> kind regards
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 9:17 AM, Avri Doria<avri at acm.org>  wrote:
>> Hi Mary,
>>
>> Thanks for the response.
>>
>> Do you think it is ok to have the call with only some of the candidates?
>>
>> thanks
>> avri
>>
>>
>>
>> On 28 Sep 2011, at 10:07,<Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu>  wrote:
>>
>>> I think it worthwhile to try to do a conference call. Perhaps we can combine elements of the two proposals Avri outlines, as follows - have members submit 3 questions; pick the top 5 most popular topics and have the candidates answer them on the call. On the call, the candidates should also be prepared to explain their positions on issues they think important to NCSG, and take live questions. Afterward, post the transcript and/or MP3 recording for those members who had to miss the call.
>>>
>>> Thanks to all who agreed to stand!
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>> Mary
>>>
>>>
>>> Mary W S Wong
>>>
>>>
>>> Professor of Law
>>>
>>>
>>> Chair, Graduate IP Programs
>>>
>>>
>>> UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH 03301USAEmail: mary.wong at law.unh.eduPhone: 1-603-513-5143Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.phpSelected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> As of August 30, 2010, Franklin Pierce Law Center has affiliated with the University of New Hampshire and is now known as the University of New Hampshire School of Law. Please note that all email addresses have changed and now follow the convention: firstname.lastname at law.unh.edu. For more information on the University of New Hampshire School of Law, please visit law.unh.edu
>>>
>>> From:
>>> Avri Doria<avri at ACM.ORG>
>>> To:
>>> <NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu>
>>> Date:
>>> 9/28/2011 3:00 AM
>>> Subject:
>>> [NCSG-Discuss] Membership interview with the candidates - options
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I was hoping to be able to set up a conference call with all of the candidates and members of the NCSG membership.  I have been having a lot of difficulty finding a time when all the candidates can make it.  I have attached a pdf below that shows the basic problem - there is not time that satisfies all of the relevant time zones without forcing someone to participate in the middle of the night.
>>>
>>> But I personally thought that it was critical for all candidates to be able to attend, since not being able to attend might put a candidate at a disadvantage.
>>>
>>> It was also obvious that with the IGF ongoing this week, the conference call would need to be next week, even though the balloting would have already started.  This did not concern me greatly, because people can vote multiple times with the system we have, with only the last ballot counting, i.e. you can change your mind up until the balloting ends on the 17 October 2359 UTC-11.
>>>
>>> An email alternate was also possible.  A 48-72 hour period could be defined for an online debate/interview of the candidates.  This could work as follows:
>>>
>>> - a set of questions would be posed on the NCSG-Discuss list to all of the candidates - each in its own thread (individual subject lines)
>>> - within the first few hours the Candidates would all send their responses to these question.
>>> - following that the candidates could discuss the issues with each other and the members of the NCSG also participate with followup questions.
>>>
>>> The advantage of doing it this way is everyone can participate regardless of their times zone and the positions of the the candidates would be avaialble and archived for the membership to read as they decided on their how to vote now, and indeed how to vote in the next elections when it comes time to review their performance against their original intentions.
>>>
>>> I would like to start this tomorrow 29 September or 30th September at the latest.
>>>
>>> I would like to get the membership's views on these issues:
>>>
>>> - should I continue to try and  find a time when we can have a teleconference with all the candidates, knowing this means someone will need to participate in the middle of the night? or allowing for a missing candidate?
>>> - should I prepare to initiate an online interview?  if so, is the simple procedure I proposed adequate?
>>>
>>> In any case, I would like to collect a set of questions for either option.  I think  5 questions at most, 3 might be ideal, would be good to start with for either model.  I ask NCSG members to suggest the questions you would like to see your eight candidates for council, and one candidate for NCSG Chair answer.  Please send these in as soon as possible so that I can collate them.
>>>
>>> thanks
>>>
>>> avri
>>>
>>> Note on the chart Tunisia is in the same zone as Western Europe
>>
>>
>> --
>> Shefqet Meda
>>
>> Electronic Communications Authority
>> Directorate of Technical Regulation
>> Director
>> Tel: 0355672026388
>> email: shefqet.meda at akep.al
>>             medashefqet at gmail.com
>> Tirana
>> Albania
>>