Re: [council] Status report on implementation of evolution and reform
Philip:
With regard to your
comments:
On
Strategy
-I did not recommend we do
nothing. I recommended against adoption of the resolution you
proposed. That is a far cry from advocating nothing.
-I do think it is incumbent upon us
to see what details are fleshed out over the next few weeks. IMHO, the
resolution does nothing further than cover well tread territory and, with
regards to diversity, you have shown me nothing that proves that 2 seats is
better than 3 from a diversity standpoint.
-While it is my hope that the Board
has read the Blueprint, I do not assume anything. My point is the Board
has adopted the Blueprint. I do not think you had to read the document to
know that SO representatives were changing from 3 to 2 or that Board
representatives from the SO's where changing from 3 to 2. As I remember,
several members of the NC members stepped forward to speak out against this
change and, while I am not positive, I strongly suspect that the Board was also
heavily lobbied at Bucharest on this point as well as many other points.
For this reason, I think the message was received by the Board. It just
wasn't adopted and I think a NC resolution based on our unadopted NC
recommendations does nothing to move the discussion further along. It is
simply inertia on the part of the NC.
-I do not assume that the remainder
of the Board resolution meant nothing. That being said, I also do not
believe it meant for constituencies and/or the NC to remain fixated on issues
that the adoption of the Blueprint should have put to rest, at least at this
early stage in developing the implementation recommendations.
On
Substance
The NC soon to be gNSO reps are
elected by the constituencies. If the BC thinks the new SO is dominated by
US reps. it clearly has a power to remedy that situation. I am sure that
there are many business users of the Internet that would be happy to
serve. The same goes for the other constituencies. I see no reason
why the NomCom could not use geographic and cultural diversity as one of its
touchstones for balancing the interests on the SO's or the Board. As for
the number of representatives, please understand that I would have been happy
with as many representatives as the ERC decided to recommend for the
IPC, so long as it were equal or greater than the number of representatives
recommended for the other constituencies in the SO. However, the ERC's
Blueprint, as adopted by the Board, calls for 2. I did not see
anything in the Board's resolution that gives the IPC or any other constituency
veto power over the Blueprint's suggested structure. I also do
not read the rest of the Board's resolution as an invitation to continue to
discuss/argue over issues that were settled when the Board adopted the Blueprint
and the structure it sets forth. The IPC, along with every other group
involved with this process, has learned to compromise. IMHO, 2
is better than none.
|