Re: [council] Conclusions to call no on ICANN Evolution
Philip:
I have just reviewed the
"Conclusions to call on ICANN Evolution" below. Perhaps I missed something
on our call; however, I do not remember any consensus. In fact, I
specifically remember that you suggested that the constituencies provide a
written idea of ICANN's mission for consideration by the NC members. I
certainly never agreed to the formulation of ICANN's mission that you have
presented in your summary. I do remember discussing the "What ICANN does"
paper. I also remember you pointing out that I seemed to be happy with
ICANN's current functions as laid out in that paper. I did not and do not
now disagree with that summarization of my opinion. On the other hand, I
find it problematic that you have formulated what appears to be a mission
statement when I do not remember any agreement on this issue. Secondly, I
do not remember the NC ever agreeing on either concept that you have labeled
"Recommendations" in your report. I do remember some discussion on these
issues, but I believe that it is an overstatement to say they are NC
recommendations.
I have no problem with you
attempting to move the discussions along. I do, however, find it
disturbing that your characterizations are far more conclusive than I remember
our discussions being. In fact, I reported to the IPC that we ( the IPC)
needed to put together a written proposal on our view of ICANN's mission for
submission to the NC. Accordingly, many members of our constituency have
worked long hours to put together the necessary document. I now look a bit
foolish when the NC Chair subsequently posts a document purporting to set forth
conclusions from the NC call which, frankly, I think overstate the position and
do not accurately reflect the discussion on the NC call.
I therefore request that the agenda
for tomorrow's call be amended to include a discussion of your report and then
we can vote on whether it is the NC's position.
Regards.
J. Scott Evans
|