RE: [registrars] Revised Draft Position

["Rob Hall" <rob@momentous.ca>]

Thanks Michael,

I think you have come a long way to more accurately representing the
teleconference.  Good Job.  If we can clean up some of the points below, I
would be willing to withdraw my draft and support yours.

First, you will note in my draft that there is no need to have 2 nominations
committees, the policy council independent members could be appointed by the
board, as per both our drafts.

However, I do have a problem with how you have enunciated the Nomination
committee in your draft. I think you are on the right track, and appreciate
the change you made, but there are still some issues that need to be
changed.

1)  By having "users" and "at large" each having 5 seats, and bundling
governments into the "at large", you have effectively given 2/3rds of the
seats to the same community.  Can you please let us know how you
differentiate between "users" and "at large" as they seem to be the same
group.

2)  On the call, we suggested not using the term "providers", as it can be
taken to mean too many groups.  For example, ISP's might think they are
providers.  I thought we elected to use the term "contracted parties" to
mean those with a direct contract with ICANN.  This allows us to include
groups like the RAR's, Root servers operators and even ccTLD's once
contracts are in place.  It really does define the actual stakeholders that
are funding ICANN.

3)  Although part of the reason I broke out the government appointed
positions seperately was indeed  that the at-large process may not form
quickly enough, and the GOV's could appoint people.  However, I think there
is a place at the table for them even after the at-large process forms.  It
will give more credibility to ICANN.

4)  I have some concerns about how you descrive the Policy Council.  It is
almost as if you are thinking of a "DNSO" type of structure with a "steering
committee".  I think this section needs some reworking, as the "council" is
in fact the "steering committee".  The council as you describe it sounds
like a large body of a collection of forums.

5)  I think the statement about the Policy Council "they should act in the
best interest of end users" needs to be re-thought.  I would suggest it
should be broader, to include "stability of the DNS and the Internet,
competition, etc ....".  While end users certainly play a part, the council
should have other criteria to measure against as well.

Again, good job on the changes so far.

Rob.





-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
Behalf Of Michael D. Palage
Sent: Friday, May 03, 2002 8:44 AM
To: registrars@dnso.org
Subject: [registrars] Revised Draft Position


Attached please find a proposed revised draft position of ICANN
restructuring. The only change that I have made in this proposal is in
connection with the composition of the nominating committee. Although I
respectfully disagree with Rob Hall's recommendation to have two nominating
committees, I have tried to make the existing nominating committee less
Balkanized. Instead of identifying specific interests to be represented in
each of the Board seats, I have tried to elevate the process up a level and
identify sector viewpoints: providers, users, and at-large/government.

Regarding the remainder of Rob Hall's comments in his draft 2 document, I
believe the original/revised draft as approved by the Executive Committee is
more succinct and takes a positive light on restructuring. There is no
shortage of constituencies, organizations, and individuals telling ICANN
what is wrong, what it should not be doing and how it is fundamentally
flawed. Although we share some of these concerns, I believe it is critical
that our position paper be positive beacon to lead other constituencies out
of this restructuring morass.

I will be forwarding to the list other constituency position papers to the
list to see what other people are saying. Based upon my quick review that
the IPC is supportive of major change whereas the business and ISP
constituencies are more in support of revising the status quo.

Best regards,

Michael D. Palage