Re: [council] RE: Draft NC Resolution reform

[Ken Stubbs <kstubbs@digitel.net>]

i would support 3 reps as opposed to 2 reps as well.. i dont believe that a
move to 3 reps will "materially change" the "blueprint"  (thats not where
the big issues are)

geographical diversity is paramount in this process and 3 reps helps to more
effectively maintain this.

it would be most helpful if other members of the council would speak to this
issue as well

best wishes

ken stubbs


----- Original Message -----
From: "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>
To: "'Cade,Marilyn S - LGA'" <mcade@att.com>; "Bruce Tonkin"
<Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>; "Philip Sheppard"
<philip.sheppard@aim.be>
Cc: "NC (list)" <council@dnso.org>
Sent: Monday, July 15, 2002 6:15 AM
Subject: RE: [council] RE: Draft NC Resolution reform


> 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
>
>