RE: [council] RE: Draft NC Resolution reform

[Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>]

Hello Marilyn,

I agree on the issue of 3 reps versus 2.  The issue is what is the next step
in the process.  We can probably go on forever in discussing new versions of
the blueprint.  I think we need to start some work on the detail.

We might need to have two separate lines of engagement on this issue.

(1) Assuming the blueprint stays - the next steps - ie start work on the
refinement

(2) Proposed changes to the blueprint - at a more strategic level

To some degree these steps can occur in parallel.  

Regards,
Bruce



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA [mailto:mcade@att.com]
> Sent: Monday, July 15, 2002 7:29 PM
> To: Bruce Tonkin; Philip Sheppard
> Cc: NC (list)
> Subject: RE: [council] RE: Draft NC Resolution reform
> 
> 
> Bruce, while I find much of your suggestions useful, I don't 
> agree that the DNSO should merely accept the Blueprint as is, 
> if we strongly disagree. For instance, I find the concept of 
> only two elected representatives for each SO of concern. The 
> need to ensure geographic diversity within each constituency 
> in terms of representative ness, and in the board members it 
> elects is a critical aspect to ICANN's success, in my view.
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bruce Tonkin [mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au]
> Sent: Monday, July 15, 2002 1:05 AM
> To: 'Philip Sheppard'
> Cc: NC (list)
> Subject: [council] RE: Draft NC Resolution reform
> 
> 
> Hello Philip,
> 
> Thank you for your efforts to extract some of the principles 
> previously
> agreed in the names council resolutions.
> 
> I interpret the Board decision at Bucharest differently it seems.
> 
> I understand that the Board has accepted the Blueprint for 
> Reform, but has
> requested that the ERC consider issues such as geographic 
> diversity in the
> implementation of the blueprint.
> 
> I see no point in trying to change aspects of the Blueprint, 
> but think we
> should focus on ensuring that the implementation of the blueprint is
> successful for ICANN.
> 
> Thus here are my comments on your draft:
> 
> (1) Policy Development Support
> 
> This is already covered to some extent in the blueprint for reform:
> "All supporting organisations and advisory committees would 
> be appropriately
> staffed to facilitate effective performance".
> 
> I see no point in claiming that a lack of staff is the only problem in
> policy development.  I would not accept that as the sole 
> answer from any
> groups within my company.
> 
> We could add value by elaborating on this point to help define what is
> appropriate.
> However from a registrars point of view, we would be unhappy with the
> numbers of staff (and hence funding) increasing massively.  I 
> would be happy
> with one full-time person to support the GNSO as a start.
> ICANN like any organisation must learn to be efficient as 
> well as effective.
> The costs of ICANN will ultimately be borne by the consumer.
> 
> 
> (2) GNSO Steering Committee
> 
> This section is basically an argument against the 
> recommendations in the
> blueprint.
> Given that the Blueprint has decided on 2 reps per constituency with 3
> voting members selected by the NomCom.   I suggest we focus 
> on defining the
> criteria for the 3 voting members selected by the NomCom.  
> For example, we
> might recommend that the 3 voting members be part of 
> geographic or cultural
> areas that are different from the other voting members of the 
> GNSO.  We
> might also recommend that the members nominated by the NomCom 
> have skills
> that complement the skills of the elected members of the 
> GNSO.  For example
> skills in international competition law or international regulatory
> experience.  At this stage of reform we can help be more 
> specific about the
> skills of the additional voting members, in much the same way 
> as a Company
> Board selects additional Board members.
> 
> Note that the Blueprint already supports the election of the Chair:
> "The Chair shall be selected by the voting members of the 
> GNSO Council".
> 
> (3) Board Composition
> 
> Again the Board Composition has already been defined by the 
> Blueprint, and
> there is no point in further arguing for a different result.
> 
> Again lets focus on refining in more detail how the 
> Nomination Committee
> selects Board members.
> The current wording states:
> "Directors selected by the NomCom should be chosen to ensure 
> that the Board
> is composed of members that in the aggregate bring to the 
> Board (1) broad
> functional diversity in the areas of expertise relevant to 
> ICANN's mission
> (2) global geographic and cultural diversity (3) the capacity 
> to understand
> the global effects of ICANN's mission and supporting 
> decisions, and (4)
> ability to contribute to the overall credibility of ICANN's 
> Board. Personal
> characteristics should include integrity, objectivity, intelligence,
> demonstrated capacity for thoughtful group decision-making, 
> and willingness
> to fulfill the responsibilities of a Board member. "
> 
> Are there any suggestions for more detail on the above?
> 
> 
> In summary I recommend we view the Blueprint
> (http://www.icann.org/committees/evol-reform/blueprint-20jun02
.htm) as a
blueprint, and work on the implementation, rather than revisiting
fundamental decisions in the blueprint.  Personally I think the Blueprint
will have no impact on an effective ICANN, unless the implementation is done
properly and with the full support of the ICANN community.  It is our role
to ensure that the implementation is done in such a way that achieves our
broad objectives that we have already agreed on in our submissions to the
Board on the reform process.

Regards,
Bruce Tonkin