Re: [council] Task Forces and diversity

["YJ Park" <yjpark@myepark.com>]

Philip,

Thank you for your clarification for "geographical diversity" in principle.

> With regard to the UDRP task force, this is a special task force as
> foreseen under 3.5 of our rules of procedure:3.5 Variations Specific
> variations to the above guidelines may exist within the DNSO rules
> of procedures, such specific variations taking precedence. Any other
> variation requires the approval of the NC.

> You will recall the NC voted to approve the terms of reference
> proposed to set up this TF. I believe that the Chair worked hard to
> embrace geographical diversity but was of course subject to the
> limitation of the nominees received. In this case I believe diversity
> has been created in other ways - by the expertise on the issues.

This reminds me of our previous discussion on NC Task Force
Composition Issue. (I attached my previous response to you below.)

As I urged earlier, the rules should be predictable and consistent.
NC should work to make rules more credible rather than gullible.

On the other hand, we can continue our previous discussion which
you didn't respond well.

"what are ICANN-relevant organizations?"
What is the purpose to create this kind of term?
What are we aiming at creating ICANN-relevant vs ICANN-irrelevant
organizations within ICANN structure?

YJ


----- Original Message -----
From: "YJ Park" <yjpark@myepark.com>
To: "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@aim.be>; "NC (list)"
<council@dnso.org>
Sent: Friday, August 03, 2001 1:08 AM
Subject: Re: [council] NC task forces compositionIssue


> Philip wrote:
>
> > YJ, a year or so ago we had no rules. We now have a set of them to help
> > make our processes more effective. Lets try them out. If they work -
good.
> > If they prove to be an obstacle - we can change them.
>
> Philip, Thank you for your explanation regarding TF composition procedure
> and I do sympathize with you the fact you pointed out.
>
> However, when people say rules, as far as I know, the rules should be
> "consistent" and "accountable". If the rule itself lack "Stability", it is
> very
> difficult to get agreed and followed by the constituency.
>
> Here are the potential "inconsistency" and "instability" I can find
easily.
>
> >[Issue 1] "An ICANN-relevant organisation is defined as one that
> >any NC member considers to be ICANN-relevant".
>
> >This definition is intentional - we cannot define a list of such
> organisations.
> >The definition allows an NC member to object and make a case
> >if they believe there is a problem. (If they cannot make any argument
that
> >the rest of the NC believes in, they may choose to withdraw their
> objection!)
>
> I am concerned with this kind of flexible interpretation and that's why I
> rasied
> as an issue. This has been the way we have been working in many ways.
>
> >[Issue 2] The rules in our rules of procedures are guidelines. If we
> choose,
> >as the NC, we can change them at any time and agree to an exception.
>
> f) regardless of the number of members of the group no constituency nor
> the general assembly may have more than one vote
>
> Again, according to 3.3 f) it doesn't sound like it can allow multiple
votes
> from one constituency however we seem to allow again very flexible
> interpretation.
>
> >[Issue 3] General Assembly going to be considered the 8th constituency?
> >As the constituencies are members of the GA , this would be a problem.
>
> What I am trying to say was, since we started to accept GA's participation
> in many TFs, let us make it a formal rule that GA is expected to
participate
> in Interim Committee and other TFs, which seems to be proven as workable
> soultion so far.
>
> >[Issue 4] The criteria on when those variation can be proposed under
which
> >condition?
>
> >have tried to set guidelines for everyday purposes. Only when the NC
> >thinks there is a good reason, will it choose to vote by majority and
> change
> >the guidelines. That seems to me to be the right balance of guidance and
> flexibility.
>
> Again, please let people, both NC and Non-NC build their trust on the
rules,
> by increasing the level of "consistency" rather than allowing too much
> flexibility.
>
> Rules should not be compromised in the name of the balance.
> Rules should be applied to all to in a consistent manner not to lose
> stability.
>
> Appreciating your efforts to make rules which were not in the NC until
> recently, I want to propose to make a Task Force which can present us
> rules which allows little much flexibilities to keep "stability".
>
> YJ