[ga] Cross-constituency meeting with ICANN Board

[Alexander Svensson <alexander@svensson.de>]

[Usual disclaimers: I'm not a professional scribe and may have
missed or misinterpreted statements. These are not verbatim
quotes. /// Alexander]

10-11h AM, Bucharest
Personal notes from the cross-constitueny meeting (BC/IPC/ISPCP)
with ICANN directors Hans Kraaijenbrink, Nii Quaynor, 
Alejandro Pisanty, Lyman Chapin, Andy Müller-Maguhn, 
Stuart Lynn, Amadeu Abril i Abril, Sang-Hyon Kyong,
Jonathan Cohen

-----------------------------------------------------

PISA: Introduction. Think we have found useful way of dialog.
      As public as possible. Will never have perfect ICANN,
      continuous evolution. Feel that we converged within
      E+R Committee, also in community. We have reached a
      number of basic agreements. Out of this week, we really
      have to come out with a framework. We won't see a lot
      of changes around these basic principles. We have to
      see which are the sticking points; should work on
      changes preferably this week; send everybody home with
      specific tasks. Understanding and acceptance of 
      concept necessary, especially NomCom concept and
      Supporting Organizations. Parts have less (ASO), parts
      have more work to do (ccTLDs).
LYNN: Nowhere in my original paper did I state that ICANN has
      failed, in particular due to participation of community.
      My concerns were towards the future. Put out deliberately
      provocative proposal. Wanted to make sure it is taken
      seriously. Response of community absolutely magnificient.
      Appreciate E+RC work very much. As Bret Fausett said,
      the community has been heard and listened to. Hope that
      as we get through the week -- not everybody will be happy
      about everything -- we can get forward with implementation
      and solve some of the most significant problems identified.
      Work of Committee and community has given us structured
      way forward.
[Q by Steve Metalitz, IPC]
Q:    One area that is frustrating -- lack of progress in getting
      ccTLDs in the ICANN system. How to go about this unfinished
      business?
LYNN: Very difficult. More than 200 TLDs. Time to take a fresh
      look at those relationships. ccTLDs and governments should
      get together; problems may in part be rather there than with
      ICANN. Slow, steady progress. We'll have more agreements in
      place, but long, complicated task.
Q:    Anything in reform that will help facilitate this?
LYNN: CNSO major step.
MMAG: Heard from ccTLDs that separation gTLD and ccTLD is good,
      but also heard that differentiation, e.g. regarding
      funding, may still not be enough.
KRAA: ccTLDs not one view. Look at contribution of Oscar Robles.
PISA: With regard to Latin American ccTLDs, new views have emerged.
      Slowly, the view that ccTLDs only have local responsibilities
      is being diluted. Have not talked to all ccTLDs. But changing
      the parameters we can look at new CNSO. Team play important.
ABRI: ccTLDs do participate in ICANN as forum, not in ICANN as
      contractual structure. I as ccTLD manager would not sign ICANN
      contract without assurance about DoC MoU issues. Perhaps
      need clearer statement on redelegations, name server changes
      etc. Incentives count. Only telling "sign an agreement" is
      not effective. General idea that ccTLD agreements are missing.
[Q by Philip Sheppard, NC Chair]
Q:    Some of us are still to hear the intellectual case for a
      Nominating Committee. Improve composition of Board? Think
      that current Board is quite fine. Want to know why improvement
      of Board is so important and about nominations to SO Councils.
CHAP: Want not another place for battles. Role geared to finding
      suitable people. Hope that NomCom casts a broad net. Look
      for people in all parts of the world and all parts of society.
      Not another layer of structure that we already are familiar 
      with. Not to pursue individual agendas, not the traditional
      list of insiders.
MMAG: Speaking as someone not happy with NomCom. Originally, Board
      divided between infrastructure providers and users. A lot of
      criticism because people are ignored; not all can afford to
      come here. 
COHE: Without getting into political agenda that some people have --
      NomCom has to be looked at as a transitional period. Maybe
      a way for one years, two years, six years. Some Board members
      still think that elections are possible. Nothing cast in stone.
      Nobody mentioned transition period: A time where some decisions
      will have to be taken and have to be done; nobody knows what
      and when.
QUAY: Very interested in representation of future users.
LYNN: Important question. Andy's point: Question to what extent the
      public interest gets reflected in ICANN. As we think it through,
      not many disagree that what ICANN does impacts public interest
      as well as others. NomCom a way of casting a wide net. Important
      not to think "I'm here from the ASO etc.".
PISA: NomCom role with respect to SOs: We are not arriving from tabula
      rasa. We have DNSO reviews, questions still open about process,
      not only structure. Idea of having NomCom add people to SOs is 
      an extension of NomCom concept: Look for people providing a
      more global point of view beyond specific tensions. Not an
      interventionist approach; want more of a principled than an
      interested approach. Looking at facilitating movement in SOs.
      Currently, approach of blocking consensus by asking for more time.
[Q by Grant Forsyth, BC]
Q:    NomCom is not a nominating committee, it's an appointment
      committee. Nominating Committee produces a slate. In Board
      structure, more than half of Board members are going to be
      appointed. That suggests a deep satisfaction with the Board
      today and -- while current proposal seems to have settled
      current constituencies -- still a dissatisfaction with that
      process. Suggests that constituencies don't represent a
      majority of interested groups. People will come from a 
      background and are not different than people elected. Have
      to emphasize that people are delegates -- positive approach.
COHE: You don't improve just because you're dissatisfied. Lyman
      expressed that being confined to chosing Board members from
      what is today the "ICANN community" is the best approach.
      A lot of people may be excellent Board members would not
      now be able to reach the Board under the current structure.
      Broader net means a much better chance for certain parts of
      the community to reach the Board than under the current
MMAG: What shall be the outcome of process? In my view, balance.
      If IP interests included, this has to be balanced by freedom
      of speech and so on. 
CHAP: Origin of NomCom is IETF/IESG in effect appointing. Shown 
      to work well. Not every time a new constituency comes along,
      the Board process and the bylaws should be changed. Have a
      process that is flexible. 
KRAA: Create a Board that works as a team. If you're looking for
      IP vs. Freedom of Speech -- that's policy development. Through
      this way, we have a better way to control the diversity.
      Important to have a team from different parts of the world,
      of the community, that work towards the goal of the corporation.
ABRI: Agree with NomCom idea, but composition still falls to closely
      to organized groups. Eight is not more than half of the Board;
      have a twenty member Board, even if not all voting.

--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html