ICANN/DNSO
DNSO Mailling lists archives

[council]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

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. 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 9:53 AM
Subject: [council] Status report on implementation of evolution and reform

On strategy
So, if I am to understand Bruce, J.Scott and Ken, your idea is:
- to do nothing for the moment
- to see what ideas are generated elsewhere and then react to them
- to assume that every member of the Board read and agreed to every detail of the blueprint
- to assume that the rest of the Board resolution meant nothing.
 
Is that where we are ? 
 
On substance
The present recommendation for two reps per constituency on the Council will likely mean one US and one for the rest of the world to fight out. The Nom Com is not seeking to balance the diversity of the constituencies' representation but the diversity of the whole NC.  It is this aspect that the NC resolution seeks to address. Does the IPC want two reps only ? Do the Registrars want two reps only ? Do you assume the nom com may appoint other IP or Registrar interests as well ? I doubt it.
 
Philip
 
 


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>