[council] CLARIFICATION ...... RE: Draft NC Resolution reform

[Ken Stubbs <kstubbs@digitel.net>]

FYI ... further clarification

the number of "representatives" i am referring to in my "previous"
correspondence is a reference to "POLICY COUNCIL REPS ..." not board
members..

ken stubbs


----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken Stubbs" <kstubbs@digitel.net>
To: "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@aim.be>
Cc: "NC (list)" <council@dnso.org>
Sent: Monday, July 15, 2002 6:33 AM
Subject: Re: [council] RE: Draft NC Resolution reform


> 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
> >
> >
>
>