Re: [council] RE: Draft NC Resolution reform

["J. Scott Evans" <jse@adamspat.com>]

Philip,

I agree with Bruce's assessment.  I do not think that the draft resolution
moves the process forward.  I realize that it grows out of recommendations
the NC made earlier; however, those recommendations were made prior to the
Board's adoption of the Blueprint.  I do not believe it is helpful to the
process for us to go back to pre-approval NC recommendations in this
resolution.  IMHO, the more constructive approach would be to frame a
discussion wherein the current NC determines what it can do to assist the
Board and the soon to be formed SO's in making the transition.  In this
regard, I think Bruce makes some valuable points.

In sum, I do not think I can support the resolution as I do not believe it
adds anything constructive to the discussion.  I think it merely dwells on
recommendations which we made and the ERC did  not adopt.  We need to move
on to more constructive dialogue at this point.

J. Scott
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>
To: "'Philip Sheppard'" <philip.sheppard@aim.be>
Cc: "NC (list)" <council@dnso.org>
Sent: Monday, July 15, 2002 1:04 AM
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
>
>
>