[nc-str] Re: Fw: Extended terms of reference -- a few suggested changes
Dear Colleagues: Sorry for the delay in my comments, but I have joined to the TF just two days ago, then I'm trying to inform my self in those topics. I include some comments below. At 01:34 p.m. 26/11/01 +0100, Philip Sheppard wrote: >Raul, welcome to the task force on structure. We are just completing a >discussion on our terms of reference. Marilyn Cade made this proposal to >my original - and I am happy with it.We will start work shortly. >Philip > >----- Original Message ----- >From: <mailto:mcade@att.com>Cade,Marilyn S - LGA >To: <mailto:nc-str@dnso.org>'Structure TF-DNSO' >Cc: <mailto:philip.sheppard@aim.be>'Philip Sheppard' ; ><mailto:gcore@wanadoo.fr>'Glen' >Sent: 23 November 2001 17:51 >Subject: Extended terms of reference -- a few suggested changes > >From: Marilyn Cade, BC rep to TF > > >Expanded terms of reference for the NC TF on structure >The terms below provide detail to the outline TOR previously circulated to >the task force. >Name >NC task force on Structure >Composition >one representative from each constituency and one from the GA, chaired by >the chair of the NC. I propose two representatives for each constituency (only one voting member). Another proposal is to have two chairs. One of them would be the NC Chair and the other from the constituency's representatives. >Members: Chair Philip Sheppard >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 organization and other related >proposals and; >To produce a recommendation to the Names Council on key re-structuring >proposals. > > >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 >- effect on the DNSO consensus process. > >3. Other: to be developed It is clear that once we begin to discuss possible restructures, we will put on the table the distribution of the Non- At Large Directors. Then it is possible that we indirectly would introduce the discussion about how many AL directors there should be. My view is that we have to discuss with independence of the possible future resolutions about the number of AL Directors. We have to figure out possible structures which could be workable if finally ICANN decide to have 50%-50% distribution (AL Directors- Non AL Directors) or if the decision include differente ratios of representation. If this is the understanding of everybody in this group, ok, but if there are different views, then I'd like to include some clarifications in those ToR. Regards, Raul P.S. - Sorry once again for comment that in the last day. Dear Colleagues: Sorry for the delay in my comments, but I have joined to the TF just two days ago, then I'm trying to inform my self in those topics. I include some comments below. At 01:34 p.m. 26/11/01 +0100, Philip Sheppard wrote: Raul, welcome to the task force on structure. We are just completing a discussion on our terms of reference. Marilyn Cade made this proposal to my original - and I am happy with it.We will start work shortly. Philip ----- Original Message ----- From: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA To: 'Structure TF-DNSO' Cc: 'Philip Sheppard' ; 'Glen' Sent: 23 November 2001 17:51 Subject: Extended terms of reference -- a few suggested changes From: Marilyn Cade, BC rep to TF Expanded terms of reference for the NC TF on structure The terms below provide detail to the outline TOR previously circulated to the task force. Name NC task force on Structure Composition one representative from each constituency and one from the GA, chaired by the chair of the NC. I propose two representatives for each constituency (only one voting member). Another proposal is to have two chairs. One of them would be the NC Chair and the other from the constituency's representatives. Members: Chair Philip Sheppard 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 organization and other related proposals and; To produce a recommendation to the Names Council on key re-structuring proposals. 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 - effect on the DNSO consensus process. 3. Other: to be developed It is clear that once we begin to discuss possible restructures, we will put on the table the distribution of the Non- At Large Directors. Then it is possible that we indirectly would introduce the discussion about how many AL directors there should be. My view is that we have to discuss with independence of the possible future resolutions about the number of AL Directors. We have to figure out possible structures which could be workable if finally ICANN decide to have 50%-50% distribution (AL Directors- Non AL Directors) or if the decision include differente ratios of representation. If this is the understanding of everybody in this group, ok, but if there are different views, then I'd like to include some clarifications in those ToR. Regards, Raul P.S. - Sorry once again for comment that in the last day. |