RE: [registrars] ICANN Restructuring Paper

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

Michael,

You have mis-represented what I said concerning the nominating committee.  I
am NOT suggesting more special interests on the nomination committee.  Just
the opposite is true.  Your draft 1 had all special interest seats, and I
clearly spoke out against that, and you changed your draft.

In this draft, you have left out 2 key points that I believe we need to
change.

First, you have not answered my direct and simple question as to what is the
difference between "Users" and "At large".  Your draft has 5 seats for each
of these, and I don't understand the difference.  Perhaps if you remove the
"At Large" phrase that most of us take to refer to "Users".  This would
leave 5 seats for Users, and 5 for Government appointed or equivalent
representatives, which is what I had originally suggested.

Secondly, I suggested the "providers tag" be changed to "contracting
companies" to be clearer about who this is.  This actually opens it up to
more groups including the RAR's, ccTLD's and Root Server Operators.  I am at
a loss as to how you see my suggestion as being in fear of "dilution".  Just
the opposite is true.  I am suggesting we take the high road, and open it up
to anyone with a contract directly with ICANN.  In this way, the true
stakeholders of ICANN are represented.

Others have expressed support for this on the list.  It is certainly what we
discussed on the call.  We are both very close on what we are proposing.  I
don't understand your reluctance to clean this up and put it to bed.  If you
disagree with both of these, can you please let me know specifically why.

Rob.

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
Behalf Of Michael D. Palage
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2002 11:58 AM
To: registrars@dnso.org
Subject: [registrars] ICANN Restructuring Paper
Importance: High


Attached is the latest position paper to represent the viewpoint of the
Registrars on ICANN restructuring. I have only made some minor changes from
the last draft to incorporate the concerns raised by some registrars. The
Executive Committee has no objections to these changes and has agreed to
submit this paper to the constituency for adoption.

The proposed changes are summarized below:

I switched the second and third whereas clause and reworded the new two (old
three) to highlight the diverse representation within the Registrar
Constituency.

In the fourth whereas clause I referenced the recent document posted by the
Board Committee on ICANN Reform and Evolution regarding ICANN's core mission
and value statement. I have reworded preamble to address the concerns raised
by RCOM and to support the current work being undertaken by the Board
Committee on ICANN Evolution and Reform.

The other change I made was in the GNPC. I tried to incorporate Rob Hall's
comments about making sure that stability is a key concern and qualifying
(not removing) the role of end users.

Rob Hall additionally raised an issue about the composition of the
Nominating Committee. Specifically the concern that our provider category
could potentially be diluted while the users and at large group teaming up,
I believe that our most important focus need to be on the selection of
qualified and objective representatives. While other constituencies try to
Balkanize the Nominating Committee, I believe if we take the high road we
will be able to have a more constructive role in making sure that the
selection process that puts these people in place are qualified and
objective.

Best regards,

Michael D. Palage
on behalf of the Registrar Executive Committee