Re: [council] Status report on implementation of evolution and reform

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

All:

I can appreciate that not everyone agrees with my earlier posting.  However,
I must again state that I think Bruce's comments are the most constructive.
With all due respect to Marilyn, Tony and Philip, I do not agree with the
resolution nor do I think it is constructive.  As I stated earlier, I think
the resolution merely restates recommendations that we made earlier.  I,
along with everyone else, agree that geographic and cultural diversity are
important issues within the ICANN restructuring process, I think it is a bit
presumptive to assume that the structure identified in the Blueprint is per
se incapable of providing the requisite diversity.  Without having more
details, I am unwilling to simply make the assumption that the Blueprint
will not provide the requisite diversity.  It seems to me that if we are
concerned that a reduction in numbers could threaten diversity, then it is
incumbent upon each constituency that sees this as an issue to make sure
that the individuals it chooses to represent its organization are, in fact
diverse.  Similarly, the new gNSO should keep this issue firmly in mind when
electing its two representatives to the Board.  Finally, it is my
understanding that the Nominating Committee will serve the purpose of
balancing both the SO's and the Board.  In this regard, there is a great
opportunity for the new process to ensure geographic and cultural diversity.
At least at this stage in the discussions, I think the more productive role
the NC can play is for its members to carefully review the papers coming
from the ERC over the next few weeks and providing thoughtful, insightful
and constructive input.  This should be done without passing a resolution
that 1) does not offer a proven solution to the perceived problem and 2)
merely looks as if the NC is continuing to debate issues that the Board's
adoption the Blueprint has put to rest.

IMHO, one of ICANN's great problems is that issues never seem to be
resolved.  Parties with certain viewpoints that are not adopted never relent
on criticizing the decision and rarely become part of the solution.  I think
it is time for the NC to lead by example -- let's not rehash former
positions in this resolution.  Let's work hard to shape the transition and
new structure.  In doing so, if we or our constituencies see issues that we
believe are not being handled sufficiently by the proposed implementation
recommendations, we can suggest modifications to the recommendations that
may help resolve the identified issues.  As stated by Bruce, this seems to
be the more productive, efficient (and more likely effective) method for
participating in the discussion over the next few months.

J. Scott
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>
To: <council@dnso.org>
Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 7:48 AM
Subject: [council] Status report on implementation of evolution and reform


> Hello All,
>
> I recommend reading the latest posting to the ICANN website:
>
> http://www.icann.org/committees/evol-reform/status-report-15jul02.htm
>
> I think this helps define where we should direct our efforts in terms of
> implementation of ICANN reform.
>
> For example the document states:
> "Since we do not have the luxury of time to reargue decisions made by the
> Board in adopting and endorsing the Blueprint for Reform, any specific
> assistance sought is intended to seek help in crafting workable
> implementation details. "
>
> The document also states:
> "All interested individuals or groups are encouraged to provide
suggestions
> and input on the implementation details of the Blueprint for Reform. "
>
> And:
> "work in progress on those recommendations will be posted monthly"
>
> We should ensure that we can obtain input from the constituencies on the
> monthly progress report, and then see if there is sufficient commonality
for
> the DNSO to formally make a recommendation.
>
> I think as we review the implementation details as they emerge, if
> requirements such as geographic diversity are not being met, we can argue
> for a change in the blueprint.
>
> Regards,
> Bruce Tonkin
>
>
>
>