RE: [council] Some Observations

[Dennis Jennings <Dennis.Jennings@ucd.ie>]

Michael,

Thank you so much for these perceptive comments.

The DoC, ICANN and NSI agreements - I am dismayed at the way this was 
handled.  I, like you, understood that such agreements would be referred to 
the Names Council for consultation and advice.  I we accept the approach 
taken by the ICANN Board we will become completely irrelevant.  I cannot 
comment about the agreements themselves since I have not had an opportunity 
to read them (I am in the middle of a VC investment in one of my companies 
- and this does take one's attention !).  I will read them ASAP.

On the GA - I have a clear view of the GA as a forum for discussion and 
work - and I fully agree with you that this will take effort on our part to 
make this happen.  We will need to discuss this and think about how we make 
this work for us.

On the positive side - I am very pleased at the way the NC is beginning to 
work together in a pleasant and comfortable fashion.  The recent 
teleconferences have been quite a pleasure (if hard work).  This is a good 
start.  Of course, we need to move on and use our time more effectively - 
with prepared papers, etc.  - but that is the next stage.

The main challenge for us is to make sure that the NC meeting in LA goes 
well.  We should spend some considerable time preparing for this meeting 
once we get through the elections.

Thanks again
Dennis

On Wednesday, October 06, 1999 7:00 PM, Michael Schneider 
[SMTP:sastre@anwalt.de] wrote:
> 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        |