<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [council] Moving foward with evolution & reform
I, too, agree with Joe's comments
regarding our need to move forward and concentrate on implementation. In
addition, I want to echo Joe's comments about the duty of the constituencies to
make the necessary adjustments to ensure that the requisite community
consultation occurs under any ICANN structure. I think Joe makes some
very constructive and creative suggestions on how constituencies operating
in a GNSO with fewer representatives could make structural changes that
would clearly facilitate intra- and inter-constituency consultation. Once
again, I do not think an additional representative per constituency solves the
problems that the BC has identified. In contrast, as pointed out in Joe's
message, I think there are constituency level solutions that could
resolve these issues.
J. Scott
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2002 7:55
AM
Subject: [council] Moving foward with
evolution & reform
Fellow council members..
I too share Joe's concerns with regard to the time
constraints we are operating under here.
I feel quite strongly that it is essential that
we move forward with the restructuring ASAP and have confidence that the
issues we are discussing now can be dealt with "in good faith" on the
back end.
At this point in time we need to get solidly behind the
Blueprint and encourage the "next steps" be taken.
All of us have worked very hard over the last few months and
it is incumbent on us that we allow the collective "fruits of our labor" to
become a reality.
We all need to concentrate very hard on
avoiding any deliberate "distractions" or "diversions" from the
principle tasks at hand.
best wishes
Ken Stubbs
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2002 6:37
AM
Subject: RE: [council] Status report on
implementation of evolution and reform
This is a perfectly rational position, but it involves tradeoffs, as I
noted earlier. I doubt that any would argue that the larger a body
gets, the less efficient it gets. So there is a cost to increased
size, which is why I would not favor the alternate idea either. If
there is a need for a whip system (which is what I take it you are saying --
meaning a system to take the pulse of members and count noses on issues),
why could not that be implemented within the constituency itself, and not
require multiple members on the NC? There could be a series of
regional constituency focal points, who would serve as both the distributors
of info from the NC members and the recipient and aggregators of feedback
from the constituency. It may be that mailing lists could serve all or
some of this function. Perhaps because I have not been there/done
that, I just don't see why the number of NC members is that critical from
this perspective.
As I said before, this must be a point on which reasonable people can
differ, since we are demonstrating that (of course, I make the
assumption that we all are reasonable), but I do think there is an
obligation on those who would want to revisit the structure adopted in the
Blueprint to provide a compelling argument for change. Any other
standard would threaten to reopen many issues, and make it very difficult if
not impossible to get to finality in the time frame available.
One other option (which I recognize may not look that attractive to
those on the other side of this issue): let's get through the
restructuring, even if it includes what some might think are imperfect
features, because it is critical that ICANN get to a position of relative
stability quickly. Once that happens, issues like this could be taken
up and debated without having the outcome unduly affected by the need for
finality that is today driven by the confluence of outside and inside issues
facing ICANN. My personal view is that arguments like this would have
a better chance if not being decided in the context of the extreme time
pressure we have now. In other words, while we certainly do not want
to make any critical errors in our restructuring effort, what is critically
important now is actually getting it done in the timeframe available.
The practical fact is that all time spent by anyone on rearguing Blueprint
issues, even if there is a rational basis for doing so, is not being
spent on implementing. Unless your view is that this is a crippling
deficiency in the Blueprint, I would argue that the better use of very
finite resources (we all have day jobs) is to focus on
implementation.
Joe Sims
Jones Day Reavis & Pogue
51 Louisiana Avenue NW
Washington, D.C. 20001
Direct Phone: 1.202.879.3863
Direct Fax: 1.202.626.1747
Mobile Phone: 1.703.629.3963
==============================
The
preceding e-mail message (including any attachments) contains information
that may be confidential, be protected by the attorney-client or other
applicable privileges, or constitute non-public information. It is intended
to be conveyed only to the designated recipient(s). If you are not an
intended recipient of this message, please notify the sender by replying to
this message and then delete it from your system. Use, dissemination,
distribution, or reproduction of this message by unintended recipients is
not authorized and may be unlawful.
==============================
-----"Cade,Marilyn S - LGA"
<mcade@att.com> wrote: -----
To: "Bruce Tonkin"
<Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>, "Jonathan Cohen"
<jcohen@shapirocohen.com>, "Joe Sims" <jsims@jonesday.com>,
"Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@aim.be>
From: "Cade,Marilyn S -
LGA" <mcade@att.com>
Date: 07/17/2002 10:32PM
cc:
<council@dnso.org>
Subject: RE: [council] Status report on
implementation of evolution and reform
Bruce, I think that it was
possible in the original recommendation in the Blueprint to miss one of the
key responsibilities of the elected reps: representation, and consultation.
Having two reps only means that you have fewer people to consult within a
constituency. Regardless of whether all can attend a meeting, there is much
other work to be done in representation, beyond the NC attendance. The idea
of 3 elected/3 voting isn't any different than 3 elected/2 voting except for
one thing. WE remove the incentive for the elected to show up and make their
own comments. I am amazed at the abdication of the constituencies -- my own
constituency has fairly high standards for their representatives and voting
isn't the only "expectation". :-)
Policy development and advice
within the constituency and engaging in policy discussion with other
constituency reps remains a priority.
So, three reps who represent,
and who vote remain a key concern with the BC.
-----Original
Message-----
From: Bruce Tonkin
[mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au]
Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2002
10:06 PM
To: 'Jonathan Cohen'; Joe Sims; Philip Sheppard
Cc:
council@dnso.org
Subject: RE: [council] Status report on implementation
of evolution and
reform
I note on average out of three reps,
probably no more than two attend any
particular meeting of the names
council. This improves at ICANN physical
meetings.
Thus having 2/3
people selected by the constituency, to fill two voting
positions on the
committee at anytime is probably workable. Effectively it
allows for
alternates.
Regards,
Bruce
> -----Original
Message-----
> From: Jonathan Cohen
[mailto:jcohen@shapirocohen.com]
> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2002 12:12
AM
> To: Joe Sims; Philip Sheppard
> Cc:
council@dnso.org
> Subject: RE: [council] Status report on
implementation of
> evolution and
> reform
>
>
> I must say I had not thought of this 'problem' when
>
suggesting a reduction
> in the number of seats on the Names Council
per
> constituency.Perhaps there
> should be 3 or even 4
members elected/appointed as Names
> Council reps but
> only 2
at any one time could attend or vote..This needs some
> thought
but
> might answer both problems??
> Jonathan
>
>
-----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@dnso.org
>
[mailto:owner-council@dnso.org]On Behalf Of
> Joe Sims
> Sent:
16 July 2002 11:13
> To: Philip Sheppard
> Cc:
council@dnso.org
> Subject: Re: [council] Status report on
implementation of
> evolution and
> reform
>
>
>
> Thanks for the clarification. I was confused. We can
discuss at some
> other time the points you raise, which I agree have
merit,
> and how they
> balance against the benefits of a
smaller council.
>
>
> Joe Sims
> Jones Day Reavis
& Pogue
> 51 Louisiana Avenue NW
> Washington, D.C.
20001
> Direct Phone: 1.202.879.3863
> Direct Fax:
1.202.626.1747
> Mobile Phone: 1.703.629.3963
>
>
>
> "Philip
> Sheppard" To: "Joe Sims"
>
<jsims@jonesday.com>
> <philip.sheppard cc:
<council@dnso.org>
> @aim.be> Subject: [council]
Status
> report on implementation of evolution and
>
reform
> Sent by:
> owner-council@dn
> so.org
>
>
> 07/16/02 10:59
> AM
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Joe, thank you for your intervention but
you have confused
> two issues. (Or
> in my usual short-hand I
failed to explain them, most probably.)
> My key concern is not the
number of Board members voted by
> the new SO (2
> now not 3) .
This is a concern but as you say can be more
> easily
balanced
> in aggregate by a nom com.
>
> The concern is
the reduction in constituency reps(council
> members) on the
>
new GNSO council from 2 to 3. The membership of many
> constituencies
has a
> typical profile in order of magnitude:
> US
>
European
> Asia Pacific
> ROW
>
> So in an election
for reps there is likely to be a first
> preference going
> to
a US candidate and the rest of the world must fight over the other
>
place.
>
> Take the BC as an example. Today we have three reps
in three
> broad time
> zones. Marilyn in the US, me in Europe
and Grant in Asia Pacific. This
> means we are in touch with the
culture of these three
> significant economic
> blocks. Our
reps are in contact with the governments in their
> regions.
It
> means that when we need to contact our members by telephone, we
have a
> member in the right time zone. When we have a chance to go to
regional
> meetings (as I did last week in Paris) a BC rep can attend
and discuss
> issues face to face with members from the region. All
this
> is diluted with
> 2 reps per constituency on the
Council. Diluting the ability
> of Council to
> represent the
Constituency is bad for Constituency outreach and
> representation.
This is bad for the Council and bad for ICANN.
>
> Maintaining
3 reps per constituency as Council members is the
> implementation we
seek from the ERC.
>
>
> Philip
>
>
>
>
>
> ==========
> The preceding e-mail
message (including any attachments) contains
> information that may be
confidential, be protected by the
> attorney-client
> or other
applicable privileges, or constitute non-public
> information.
It
> is intended to be conveyed only to the designated
>
recipient(s). If you are
> not an intended recipient of this message,
please notify the sender by
> replying to this message and then delete
it from your system. Use,
> dissemination, distribution, or
reproduction of this message
> by unintended
> recipients is
not authorized and may be unlawful.
> ==========
>
>
>
>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|