Re: [nc-str] Extended terms of reference

["Peter Dengate Thrush" <barrister@chambers.gen.nz>]

Dear All,

Some suggestions on the TOR follow

----- Original Message -----

From: Philip Sheppard

To: NC Structure

Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 11:10 PM

Subject: [nc-str] Extended terms of reference

Further to the meeting we had of those TF members present in LA last week, allow me to propose the following expanded terms of reference. These build on the outline agreed to previously by the TF.
Philip.
-------------------------
Expanded terms of reference for the NC TF on (ICANN )structure-

 

       (We need to be clear about whether our exercise is directed at the whole ICANN structure, just   

       the DNSO, or the latter-but with-a-comment-on-the former. My concern is that our "expertise" 

       may be seen by the Board as limited to the DNSO. I suggest we focus on our own patch, but make

       comment on our view of likely imopacts on components outside the DNSO. We are a DNSO body,

       and the Board has formed a committee to pull together all the strands. )

The terms below provide detail to the outline TOR previously circulated to the task force.
Name

NC task force on     (ICANN or DNSO?)   Structure
Composition
one representative from each constituency and one from the GA
Members: Chair Philip
IP Mark Bohannon, BC Marilyn Cade, gTLDs David Johnson, ccTLDs Peter Dengate-Thrush, Registrars Ken Stubbs, Non-Commercials ?, ISP Tony Holmes, GA Dave Farrar

Terms of reference
To produce a timely impact assessment on

a) the efficacy of ICANN decision making and

b) the efficacy of policy making within the DNSO,

as a result of the proposals from the at-large study committee, the desire of the ccTLDs to form their own supporting organisation ( various votes by GA and NC concerning an at large constituency?)and other related proposals and;

 

 

       Agreed. I suggest though, in light of my other comments about our role in this, that we change

      the  order, to focus first on our own area of responsibility, then on consequential changes

 

To produce a recommendation to the Names Council on key re-structuring proposals.

 

(Is this really the goal? This might, if interpreted literally, restrict us to comment on each proposal separately ;eg  ' ALSC=good, ccSO=excellent, @large constituency= magnificent", but no comment on how best an integrated approach, taking the best from each proposal, and working through the consequences of implementation leads to a better overall structure.

 

I suggest:

".... Names Council on the re-structuring of the DNSO, and the consequential impact on ICANN"

 

 

To achieve this the task force should briefly evaluate proposals for re-structuring against the following criteria:
1. the efficacy of ICANN decision making.
- the ability of each proposal to generate valid consensus-based policy making
- possibility of the Board receiving contradictory advice from its SOs and the impact on resolution mechanisms
- likely financial and representational robustness of any SO.

2. the efficacy of policy making within the DNSO
- degree of formal interaction between stakeholders
- ratio of unique issues of a new SO outside the competence of DNSO versus issues within competence of DNSO

 

    I have no idea what this means. If the answer to the question is a ratio of 1:7.5, how does

    that lead to better decision making? If its intended to be an exploration of overlap between, 

    say, the areas of at large representation that is handled by the ccSO rather than the @LSO,

    what use is that? There will be an overlap between SO's. The useful task is to ensure that  

    there are cross SO mechanisms (preferrably below board level) which can be easily invoked

    to resolve them.

   The more useful exercise might be to look at what the charter of the DNSO becomes after

    withdrawal of the cctlds - its clearly no longer "all domain name" issues, but becomes

   "generic domain name" issues, and if there is to be no individuals constituency in the DNSO

    but an SO for individual domain name holders.
- effect on the DNSO consensus process.

Timeframe:
The task force will consider proposals made to the Board by the ALSC or DNSO constituencies  before 31 January 2002.

Agreement on terms of reference – 23 November

Development of criteria – 30 November
Data gathering - December/January

Initial report 31 January 2002
Report ICANN Ghana March 2002