RE: [council] RE: Draft NC Resolution reform

["Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <mcade@att.com>]

I really don't agree with this assessment on all fronts.  Here's why: while the BC supports much of the Blueprint, we find that some of the decisions are, frankly, not sustainable over the long term perspective...  in fact, ironically, the GAC agrees with "us" on some of these issues. 

:-)

There will be a series of opportunities to comment on the implementation. 

So, I suggest that the NC determine what those essential elements are where we are in support of, and in disagreement with, the Blueprint. It is after all a Blueprint. We are urged to provide comments; and in  fact, there will be open comment periods on different items. It would be irresponsible of us not to be thoughtful in our comments and input. 

"It" isn't concrete--meaning that stuff sidewalks are made of.  :-0

YET.

Let's add the value which we are capable of adding... figuring out those two to three areas where we might, truly, know "best".  :-) Or know something of value.  

For instance, again, I seriously challenge how to ensure geographic diversity without maintaining the three BD members per SO. Geographic diversity is a core value -- and we should make our views known about its importance.

Of course, the NC will examine, closely, how to implement. BUT, let's make sure it is something which is sustainable and supportable which is being implemented.  

Isn't that what we think we are about? 


MC

-----Original Message-----
From: Ken Stubbs [mailto:kstubbs@digitel.net]
Sent: Monday, July 15, 2002 6:33 PM
To: J. Scott Evans
Cc: NC (list)
Subject: Re: [council] RE: Draft NC Resolution reform


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
> >
> >
> >
>
>