Re: [council] RE: Draft NC Resolution reform

[Ken Stubbs <kstubbs@digitel.net>]

J Scott's  logic stated here appears to be quite sound

ken stubbs

----- Original Message -----
From: "J. Scott Evans" <jse@adamspat.com>
To: "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>; "'Philip Sheppard'"
<philip.sheppard@aim.be>
Cc: "NC (list)" <council@dnso.org>
Sent: Monday, July 15, 2002 17:40 PM
Subject: Re: [council] RE: Draft NC Resolution reform


> 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
> >
> >
> >
>
>