[nc-review] NC Review 2.0 Circulation for Comment.

["Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@aim.be>]

Here follow my comments on Review 2.0 as a representative of AIM. I am
commenting only on the consultation process and base this on my experience
as co-chair of WG B and as an issue-manager with a diverse multi-cultural
trade association.

1. The NC should take responsibility for the process. The NC should lead on
consultation. An NC member should chair each working group (WG). There
should be no other chair. The chair will be responsible for building
consensus, barring abuse, writing precis of opinions and drafting documents.

2. Terms of reference for a working group should be:
- realistic and limited in scope
- action oriented without descriptive hyperbole
- include measures of success
- specify a deadline
- specify the process
- specify the date (or trigger point) for the termination of the work group.

3. Each constituency should be encouraged to appoint a rapporteur to
participate in each work group and be the conduit for informing the
constituency and passing to the WG the opinion of the constituency.

4. Abusive participants in a WG should be deleted from participation after
two warnings from the WG chair.

5.  The WG chair should report at each NC meeting to advise of progress and
feasibility of completing the tasks within the timescale.

6.  The final report of a WG should be seen as a set of opinions of a
diverse but not systematically representative group. Its recommendations
should then be evaluated and challenged by debate within the representative
NC. The NC will then produce its own report on the issue as an NC
recommendation to the ICANN Board.

Philip.

Philip Sheppard
AIM - European Brands Association
9  av. des Gaulois  B-1040 Brussels
Tel +322 736 0305 Fax +322 734 6702