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

[Ken Stubbs <kstubbs@digitel.net>]

This is, in my opinion, the most productive approach for all of us to adopt
in moving this process forward.

Ken Stubbs


----- Original Message -----
From: "J. Scott Evans" <jse@adamspat.com>
To: "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>; <council@dnso.org>
Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 9:11 AM
Subject: Re: [council] Status report on implementation of evolution and
reform


> 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>