RE: [council] Some Observations

["Dr. Victoria Carrington" <drvcarrington@echelon.ca>]

Dennis and Michael:

Even though I am merely a temporary participant in the NC for a very
specific purpose, I hope you will allow me to add a few thoughts here.  I
agree with most of your comments below, particularly with the point that
there appears to be a definite improvement in the way the NC is handling
its duties and the manner in which everyone is starting to work together
more coherently,  even in the face of disagreement on certain issues.  I
also share Michael's view (and frustration) that sometimes issues are
repeatedly discussed without much progress being made.  Hopefully, this is
something that will decrease in frequency as people get more and more
accustomed to working together in this fairly unusual manner. Having
participated in the last couple of conference calls, I have every
confidence in all NC members that increasing effort will be made to focus
dialog a bit more both on the phone and on the list, and consequently more
will get done.  

I just wanted to mention though, that while Michael is correct in pointing
out that an inordinate amount of time should not be spent on merely
procedural issues, I think they cannot be neglected either.  It may be time
consuming now, but can save a lot headaches, criticism and finger-pointing
later when the NC makes any kind of statement or advises ICANN, and the
legitimacy of the statement or advice is called into question by those who
would allege that they were arrived at through improper methods.  This is
pretty much what happened to WG-A, a situation which we are very mindful of
in WG-B, and are making tremendous efforts to correct.  With WG-A, the
problem was that the group was obliged to begin, carry out and actually
complete its work before any procedures had been discussed or agreed upon.
The fallout from this resulted in attacks on the results of WG-A's work,
which ultimately reflected negatively on the Names Council itself for
having accepted the report and basing its recommendations to ICANN on it.
The "excuse" there of course was, that the WG was forced to get going due
to time constraints from ICANN itself, but as you all know, many people
were less than satisfied with this explanation (although they appeared to
content themselves with criticizing rather than offering constructive
advice).  If anything, enough time has passed now that this explanation can
be relied upon even less, despite the fact that many of the DNSO processes,
 (elections, etc.) continue to be driven by very short deadlines set by
ICANN.  

This was just intended to be an observation on my part.  I look forward to
working with you through the elections.

Victoria


At 05:02 PM 06/10/99 , you wrote:
>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        |