[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[council] Some Observations
Dear colleagues,
after several weeks of travelling, during which I didn't really find the
time to comment on the - by now - numerous threads on this list, I have
been using the last couple of days to work on some of the current questions
more intensely. In this context I reread the messages that were posted to
the list during the past weeks in one go - which gave me some very
interesting insights that I do not want to keep secret.
It is apparent that we are treating several things in extreme detail which
someone who is used to producing results that can be implemented in
practice, by tendency will consider completely irrelevant. Please don't get
me wrong - I do not want to criticize but rather raise awareness for an
impression which one can probably only gain from reading the postings of a
longer time period in one go and then asking onesself what was in essence
really discussed. I admit that I myself was often tempted during the past
weeks to press the reply-button and lengthen a thread by a mere "ACK" or
"NACK".
Let me share with you what the relevant points were that remained in my
mind after this exercise:
The "highlight" to me was the debate over who should chair a telephone
conference, a meeting or even the Names Council as a whole. I have seen
several sequences here which always had the same pattern: first it was
noted that we need a chairperson, then suggestions were made, finally we
discussed the matter to all extents in a conference call and agreed on
something, just to begin again from scratch on the list afterwards. In the
second round postings were added in which some of you (correctly) voiced
not understanding why we were continuing the discussion at all. Apart from
the fact that it doesn't lead to anything we should be asking ourselves how
motivated someone can be in the long term if we first ask him - like Dennis
- to volunteer his services and then constantly ask whether he should be
replaced by someone else.
This said, it is not at all surprising if the substance which we should
really be discussing is not treated sufficiently. The best example from my
perspective are the set of agreements between the DoC, ICANN and NSI
published last week. I saw one single announcement to this on the list and
nothing further. This is one of the main reasons why I reread the
NC-correspondance in its essential parts - I couldn't believe that we had
not at all been included in this process and that for over one week no one
had seriously gotten upset about this fact. The result of my reading
however confirmed that I hadn't overseen something (or did I?) but that we
apparently missed out on acknowledging the process completely.
You might see this differently, but I personally consider the subject of
the agreements DNSO-core business. The question treated is how and by whom
the registry for the most important gTLDs shall be regulated in the coming
years. The fact that the ICANN-Board did not include or consult us in the
least (if so, I hereby apologize for my ignorance) is in my opinion
unacceptable. Of course I admit that the bylaws give the NC more of a role
as consultant rather than decision maker. Nevertheless it is evident that
one can only be a good advisor if informed early enough and then actually
asked for advice. If the NC has the sole purpose of applauding the Board I
seriously have to ask myself whether I want to do the job. Apart from this
I have always interpreted the numerous meetings which we had before the
founding of the DNSO - just as the bylaws - in such a way that proposals
for resolutions are either made by the NC to the Board or that, if the
Board becomes active itself, it would present its ideas to the NC for
review. And with "present" I do NOT mean that we may participate in a
discussion on public mailing lists on the ICANN website once facts have
been created.
Please note: I have said nothing about how I judge the content of the "lex
NSI" (although I am very tempted to elaborate on how evident it is from my
perspective that the Board was interested in peace + funding at any price).
In any case however I believe we should try somewhat distancing ourselves
from procedural questions and face the Board very confidently. I think we
have the potential to do so, especially since there are some among us that
very consciously decided against running for the Board and for staying with
the NC.
Another item which we urgently and with some pressure should try to tackle
- even if it is unpopular - is the role of the GA. I can only underline
what was said in the last conference call and what Dennis expressed very
diplomatically in his mail to Nii. The GA is a very valuable instrument,
but it cannot be a body that competes with the NC in taking decisions or
even giving orders to the Board. The format of the last GA-meetings, as you
know, did not appeal to me at all and I will not support a repetition of
this. I see GA-meetings as a dialogue between the DNSO at large and the NC.
That means: the NC must make itself available as partner for this dialogue
but also ensure that the discussion remains in the framework set out in the
bylaws. I imagine something in the middle between the "ICANN open meetings"
on the one hand (which to me are too strongly dominated by Board and staff)
and the "good old", but rather chaotic IFWP-meetings.
I know that I have expressed my opinion rather directly and unusually
undiplomatically for my normal style. On the other hand this might prove to
be a good starting point for a fruitful discussion.
Best regards,
Michael Schneider
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
| Michael Schneider CEO, AboveNet Deutschland GmbH |
| CEO, World Switch GmbH |
| Founder, Schneider & Schollmeyer Law Firm |
| Chairman, eco - Electronic Commerce Forum e.V. |
| Director, European ISP Association (EuroISPA) |
| Member, Names Council of ICANN |
| Eschborner Landstrasse 112, D-60489 Frankfurt am Main |
| Phone: +49 2242 927027 Michael.Schneider@abovenet.de |