Re: [council] Conclusions to call on ICANN Evolution

["J. Scott Evans" <jse@adamspat.com>]

Philip:

 

My apologies if the tone of my message offended you, that certainly was not my intent.  I was simply surprised by your characterization of the points raised in your message.  Perhaps it is my short tenure with the NC, however, I was unfamiliar with the process you utilize as Chair to move the discussion along. 

 

That being said, I have reviewed the minutes of the call and I see only one "conclusion"; namely, "There were no universally agreed functions that should be deleted."  While it is unclear from the minutes, I assumed that this "conclusion" referred to the list of duties that the "What ICANN does" paper enumerated.  Further, I see no "conclusion" reflected in the minutes with regard to ICANN's mission.  I also see no mention that the full NC endorsed the recommendations set forth in your message.  IMHO, it may have been better to say one NC member recommended _________, and I ask for NC input as to whether this a recommendation the full NC.  I understand that the introductory paragraph does indeed state that the conclusions are "draft" and that the recommendations are "proposed."  I simply have great concern that even "draft conclusions" and "proposed recommendations" circulated by the NC Chair send a message to stakeholders that the NC has moved to a point of consensus which I do not believe we have achieved to date.  I was also concerned that I did not see any time allotted on Thursday's agenda for any discussion on these draft conclusions and proposed recommendations.  I realize time is short but I believe it is important that the NC find some common ground on the issues outlined in your message before moving on to the other issues slotted for consideration in Thursday's agenda.

 

J. Scott Evans

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

From: Philip Sheppard

To: NC (list)

Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2002 9:04 AM

Subject: [council] Conclusions to call on ICANN Evolution

J Scott,

as chairman I can either host a call and never dare to draw conclusions, or I can listen to a discussion predicated on a set of specific questions and then attempt to make something concrete from them.

 

I choose option two. In so doing I label them DRAFT- so that NC members can then respond saying

"Dear Philip, I do not agree to that specific point for the following reasons...."

 

The first draft was sent March 28 with the following message:

"Further to the minutes of the NC meeting, please find below draft conclusions and two proposed recommendations for the NC to consider. (Attached also are the terms of reference adopted by the NC 22 March). At this point the recommendations are intended to relate only to the scope and functions of ICANN. Further recommendations may follow future discussion. These recommendations attempt to reflect the broad view of the discussion on scope and pick up one concrete proposal made regarding the creation of separate divisions to handle specific technical functions. Comments please by e-mail in advance of the April 4 meeting."

 

So I see little reason for the tone of your message. I await the IPC opinion on ICANN functions with interest.

Philip