Philip/All
I
totally support the remarks made below. The Board took the decision in
Bucharest to move forward on the basis of the blueprint to ensure the impetus
for reform was maintained. That certainly doesn't mean all is now a done deal.
We have been in this position before on a number of ICANN issues and things
have invariably changed. We would be failing in our duty of representing
our constituencies if we just roll over and accept that 'we've done all we
can'. Whilst we're unlikely to find the NC views are accepted in their
totality, (did anyone ever believe they would be??) some aspects are still
very valid.
Whilst I accept the need to consider some of the
other issues that have been raised, they shouldn't dominate our thinking at
this stage.
Tony
Council,
While I do not disagree with further considering new issues
such as the composition of the nominating committee, I do believe that the
Board resolution is worth reading again. It was carefully worded for a
reason.I made a synopsis of the Board resolution in the
proposed NC resolution.
Of course the board adopted the blueprint - that was bound
to happen, but the Board did more. It did not buy into every nook and cranny
of the blueprint. It set conditions such as geographic diversity, it called
for more consultation, it said new ideas not in the blueprint should also be
considered.
To simply give up lobbying on an issue of fundamental
importance based on the logic that it is all a done deal is something I find
not to my taste and I believe NOT in sympathy with the Board
resolution.
We are winning friends in the GAC on both sides of the
Atlantic for the points in the NC resolution on geographic diversity. We need
to ride this wave not let it pass.
Philip