Re: [council] Draft conclusions of NC discussion on ICANN reform - scope

[Thomas Roessler <roessler@does-not-exist.org>]

On 2002-03-28 16:54:07 +0100, Philip Sheppard wrote:

>   Thomas, thanks for your quick reply. To my mind there is no 
>   later time for discussions. We have a May 14 deadline to make a 
>   set of recommendations or be ignored. A recommendation which 
>   says that a defined list of functions is about right and should 
>   neither be added to nor deleted from is useful. And seemed to be 
>   where we were on the call more or less.

I am not talking about delaying things until the next century.  We 
are going to have teleconferences, before May 14.  In these 
teleconferences, we are going to talk about various aspects of ICANN 
structure.  One of these aspects will be board selection, and public 
participation (subject area #5 according to the terms of reference). 
The at large membership topic belongs into that discussion, in its 
entirety.  

It does not belong into the discussion of what kind of regulatory 
functions ICANN should or should not perform with respect to gTLDs 
or ccTLDs.  (At least, that's how I see it.)

>   If there is disagreement to such a recommendation then that what 
>   we need to hear are clear voices which say:

I have no objection against a list of functions.  However, I object 
against restricting the discussion of _tools_ (which has not yet 
begun) by claiming that one possible tool is "mission creep".

As I wrote in my first reply, I have no problems with the text you 
propose, with the single exception of the note on the at large 
membership.

-- 
Thomas Roessler                          http://log.does-not-exist.org/