Geoff,
Thanks for sending me your original message. I am happy to note that there
is no misleading information in it and therefore the interpretation made by
the person who quoted your message (namely "lack of interest in the
technical community") is only his own view. He is just an individual
expressing his opinion and therefore he has every right to interpret as he
wishes.
There is absolutely no dispute from my side on the appropriateness of
extending the period of nominations in order to allow a proper and clear
application from those interested. We agreed by unanimity. I would
nevertheless like to get a recognition of the fact that I announced, some
months before the deadline, that a person from ETSI was going to apply and
that his details are already in the hands of all of us. But it is true that
my the announcement I made in March was not followed by a proper
application on time and therefore the "potential" candidate was a "phantom"
for all of you. I gave his name in the teleconference hoping that some of
the PSO PC Council members may know him, but in "procedural terms", a name
is not enough. This is not the first time in my already long experience on
international bodies that applications are made beyond the deadline whilst
"still on time" regarding the decision process, but, like you, I dislike to
jump over the procedures. Fortunately the extension of the period solved
the problem and now everybody interested to apply has the chance to do so.
You seem to be unhappy with my use of the term "under consideration". This
term means to me "under study" or "information available to be looked at
and analysed". I fully agree with you that none of us need to build up a
decision until the period for nominations closes by 15th August and we have
in front of us the details of the various candidates (hopefully a lot!).
Kind regards,
Azucena
Geoff Huston <gih@telstra.net> con fecha 07/08/2002 03:30:12
Destinatarios: Azucena Hernandez Perez/INFR/TESA@Telefonica,
pso-pc@ties.itu.ch
CC:
Asunto: Re: Reply to ICANN Watch
Hi,
You requested a copy of my original note to the IETF POSED mailing
list. Here's my original posting...
------snip snip----
R.Gaetano@iaea.org wrote:
>Hi.
>I'm not sure if this is the right forum, but since on the PSO Web Site
>there's no info, I wonder somebody here has any news on the candidates
for
>the post vacated by Phil Davidson. The deadline for nominations was
>2002-07-15, if I got it cortrectly.
By a majority vote the PSO PC determined to extend the deadline for
nominations to 15 August 2002
To quote from http://www.pso.icann.org/ICANN-BOD/icann-bod.html
NEW ANNOUNCEMENT:
As the 3 year term of Phil Davidson as a member of the ICANN Board of
Trustees ended, the PSO-PC has opened on 1st June 2002 the Call for
Nominations from the SDOs and the public at large to the ICANN Board for
the term beginning October 1, 2002. Nominations have to be emailed to
PSO-PC Secretary: vladimir.androuchko@itu.int accompanied by nominees'
CVs. The closing date for nominations has been extended from 15 July to 15
August, 2002.
>Any hint on who are the nominated persons, and whether there is any
>possibility the PSO would comply (for once) with the geographical
diversity
>indications given by ICANN, or still thinks that there are no qualified
>candidates outside North America + Europe?
I understand that no nominations were received by the original deadline
of 15 July 2002.
If you feel that there are candidates who should be considered by the PSO,
or, of course, if you feel that your name should be considered by the PSO
as a candidate, then I guess that you should submit names and details to
the PSO by the 15th August as per the process described above.
Geoff Huston
------snip snip----
Your response includes the comment that: "No nomination was submitted by
the original deadline due to a pure administrative problem related to the
holiday period."
Whether it was the dog or the cat that ate the homework is perhaps not
exactly the point here. ( :-) ) What I mean by that statement is that in
terms of the application of process in a fair and impartial manner, the
reason for missing a deadline is, perhaps, not entirely relevant. There was
a deadline for nominations. The deadline passed without a single
nomination being received. By a majority vote the PSO PC determined to
extend the period for lodgement of nominations. I don't believe that this
description of the status of the nomination process is in dispute.
I also note tin the response hat the assertion that "the candidate details
are already under consideration by the PSO Council members." is potentially
misleading, in so far as it may be construed that all PSO Council members
are considering this candidate at present. With reference to myself. I
believe it to be entirely appropriate and proper to await the receipt of
all nominations before I consider any individual nomination, and,
therefore, the details of this candidate, and any other candidate who
lodges an application by the new deadline, will be considered by myself
only after the deadline has expired and the PSO Secretary circulates the
details of nominations that have been received.
Regards,
Geoff
At 01:38 PM 8/6/2002 +0200, azucena.hernandezperez@telefonica.es wrote:
>Dear PSO PC colleagues,
>
>Back to work having had to extend my holidays to cope with some personal
>problems (nothing serious!). I haven't read yet all the messages exchanged
>in this mailing list. I have nevertheless noted that Mr Da Silva's
official
>nomination to the ICANN Board has reached us.
>
>I have quickly reacted to the message sent by Richard as I do not want any
>misunderstanding in any website about the reasons for extending the
>deadline for ICANN Board nominations. Please find enclosed the post I have
>made in the "ICANNWatch website":
>
>
****************************************************************************
> From Azucena Hernandez:
>As a clarification, the body I represent in the PSO Council, which is ETSI
>(European Telecommunications Standard Institute),
>announced on the 14th March that a nomination was going to be submitted
>(please see the Minutes of the Teleconference
>hold 14th March 2002 in www.pso.icann.org).
>No nomination was submitted by the original deadline due to a pure
>administrative problem related to the holiday period.
>The candidate details are already under consideration by the PSO Council
>members.
>I do not know how much interest the "technical community" has on ICANN
>matters because that community is huge and I do not
> represent it, but I can confirm that the interest of ETSI in ICANN
> matters keeps being as high as when ICANN and the PSO were
> set up.
>
******************************************************************************
>The message I have replied to mentions another one from Geoff that I can
>not open. Geoff, could you be so kind to send it
> to me?. Thanks a lot.
>
>Kind regards,
>Azucena
>
>
>
>
>"Hill, Richard" <richard.hill@itu.int> con fecha 05/08/2002 16:27:08
>
>Destinatarios: Azucena Hernandez Perez/INFR/TESA@Telefonica
>CC:
>Asunto: Reply to ICANN Watch
>
>
>Azucena,
>
>Perhaps you should post a comment to the following:
>
>
http://www.icannwatch.com/article.php?sid=885&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0
>
>pointing out that the missed deadline was just a clerical error, the
>candidate had in fact been identified in good time.
>
>Best,
>Richard
>
>
>
>
>
___________________________________________________________________________
>
>Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario y puede contener
>información privilegiada o confidencial. Si no es vd. el destinatario
>indicado, queda notificado de que la utilización, divulgación y/o copia
sin
>autorización está prohibida en virtud de la legislación vigente. Si ha
>recibido este mensaje por error, le rogamos que nos lo comunique
>inmediatamente por esta misma vía y proceda a su destrucción.
>
>
>This message is intended exclusively for its addressee and may contain
>information that is CONFIDENTIAL and protected by professional privilege.
>If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any
>dissemination, copy or disclosure of this communication is strictly
>prohibited by law. If this message has been received in error, please
>immediately notify us via e-mail and delete it.
>
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario y puede contener
información privilegiada o confidencial. Si no es vd. el destinatario
indicado, queda notificado de que la utilización, divulgación y/o copia sin
autorización está prohibida en virtud de la legislación vigente. Si ha
recibido este mensaje por error, le rogamos que nos lo comunique
inmediatamente por esta misma vía y proceda a su destrucción.
This message is intended exclusively for its addressee and may contain
information that is CONFIDENTIAL and protected by professional privilege.
If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any
dissemination, copy or disclosure of this communication is strictly
prohibited by law. If this message has been received in error, please
immediately notify us via e-mail and delete it.
___________________________________________________________________________