<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[council] Moving foward with evolution & reform
Fellow council members..
I too share Joe's concerns with regard to the time constraints
we are operating under here.
I feel quite strongly that it is essential that we
move forward with the restructuring ASAP and have confidence that the
issues we are discussing now can be dealt with "in good faith" on the back
end.
At this point in time we need to get solidly behind the
Blueprint and encourage the "next steps" be taken.
All of us have worked very hard over the last few months and
it is incumbent on us that we allow the collective "fruits of our labor" to
become a reality.
We all need to concentrate very hard on
avoiding any deliberate "distractions" or "diversions" from the
principle tasks at hand.
best wishes
Ken Stubbs
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2002 6:37
AM
Subject: RE: [council] Status report on
implementation of evolution and reform
This is a perfectly rational position, but it involves tradeoffs, as I
noted earlier. I doubt that any would argue that the larger a body gets,
the less efficient it gets. So there is a cost to increased size, which
is why I would not favor the alternate idea either. If there is a need
for a whip system (which is what I take it you are saying -- meaning a system
to take the pulse of members and count noses on issues), why could not that be
implemented within the constituency itself, and not require multiple members
on the NC? There could be a series of regional constituency focal
points, who would serve as both the distributors of info from the NC members
and the recipient and aggregators of feedback from the constituency. It
may be that mailing lists could serve all or some of this function.
Perhaps because I have not been there/done that, I just don't see why the
number of NC members is that critical from this perspective.
As I said before, this must be a point on which reasonable people can
differ, since we are demonstrating that (of course, I make the assumption
that we all are reasonable), but I do think there is an obligation on those
who would want to revisit the structure adopted in the Blueprint to provide a
compelling argument for change. Any other standard would threaten to
reopen many issues, and make it very difficult if not impossible to get to
finality in the time frame available.
One other option (which I recognize may not look that attractive to those
on the other side of this issue): let's get through the restructuring,
even if it includes what some might think are imperfect features, because it
is critical that ICANN get to a position of relative stability quickly.
Once that happens, issues like this could be taken up and debated without
having the outcome unduly affected by the need for finality that is today
driven by the confluence of outside and inside issues facing ICANN. My
personal view is that arguments like this would have a better chance if not
being decided in the context of the extreme time pressure we have now.
In other words, while we certainly do not want to make any critical errors in
our restructuring effort, what is critically important now is actually getting
it done in the timeframe available. The practical fact is that all time
spent by anyone on rearguing Blueprint issues, even if there is a rational
basis for doing so, is not being spent on implementing. Unless your
view is that this is a crippling deficiency in the Blueprint, I would argue
that the better use of very finite resources (we all have day jobs) is to
focus on
implementation.
Joe Sims
Jones Day Reavis & Pogue
51 Louisiana Avenue NW
Washington, D.C. 20001
Direct Phone: 1.202.879.3863
Direct Fax: 1.202.626.1747
Mobile Phone: 1.703.629.3963
==============================
The
preceding e-mail message (including any attachments) contains information that
may be confidential, be protected by the attorney-client or other applicable
privileges, or constitute non-public information. It is intended to be
conveyed only to the designated recipient(s). If you are not an intended
recipient of this message, please notify the sender by replying to this
message and then delete it from your system. Use, dissemination, distribution,
or reproduction of this message by unintended recipients is not authorized and
may be unlawful.
==============================
-----"Cade,Marilyn S - LGA"
<mcade@att.com> wrote: -----
To: "Bruce Tonkin"
<Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>, "Jonathan Cohen"
<jcohen@shapirocohen.com>, "Joe Sims" <jsims@jonesday.com>,
"Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@aim.be>
From: "Cade,Marilyn S -
LGA" <mcade@att.com>
Date: 07/17/2002 10:32PM
cc:
<council@dnso.org>
Subject: RE: [council] Status report on
implementation of evolution and reform
Bruce, I think that it was
possible in the original recommendation in the Blueprint to miss one of the
key responsibilities of the elected reps: representation, and consultation.
Having two reps only means that you have fewer people to consult within a
constituency. Regardless of whether all can attend a meeting, there is much
other work to be done in representation, beyond the NC attendance. The idea of
3 elected/3 voting isn't any different than 3 elected/2 voting except for one
thing. WE remove the incentive for the elected to show up and make their own
comments. I am amazed at the abdication of the constituencies -- my own
constituency has fairly high standards for their representatives and voting
isn't the only "expectation". :-)
Policy development and advice within
the constituency and engaging in policy discussion with other constituency
reps remains a priority.
So, three reps who represent, and who vote
remain a key concern with the BC.
-----Original
Message-----
From: Bruce Tonkin
[mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au]
Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2002
10:06 PM
To: 'Jonathan Cohen'; Joe Sims; Philip Sheppard
Cc:
council@dnso.org
Subject: RE: [council] Status report on implementation of
evolution and
reform
I note on average out of three reps,
probably no more than two attend any
particular meeting of the names
council. This improves at ICANN physical
meetings.
Thus having 2/3
people selected by the constituency, to fill two voting
positions on the
committee at anytime is probably workable. Effectively it
allows for
alternates.
Regards,
Bruce
> -----Original
Message-----
> From: Jonathan Cohen
[mailto:jcohen@shapirocohen.com]
> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2002 12:12
AM
> To: Joe Sims; Philip Sheppard
> Cc: council@dnso.org
>
Subject: RE: [council] Status report on implementation of
> evolution
and
> reform
>
>
> I must say I had not thought of
this 'problem' when
> suggesting a reduction
> in the number of
seats on the Names Council per
> constituency.Perhaps there
>
should be 3 or even 4 members elected/appointed as Names
> Council reps
but
> only 2 at any one time could attend or vote..This needs some
> thought but
> might answer both problems??
>
Jonathan
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From:
owner-council@dnso.org
> [mailto:owner-council@dnso.org]On Behalf
Of
> Joe Sims
> Sent: 16 July 2002 11:13
> To: Philip
Sheppard
> Cc: council@dnso.org
> Subject: Re: [council] Status
report on implementation of
> evolution and
> reform
>
>
>
> Thanks for the clarification. I was confused. We
can discuss at some
> other time the points you raise, which I agree
have merit,
> and how they
> balance against the benefits of a
smaller council.
>
>
> Joe Sims
> Jones Day Reavis
& Pogue
> 51 Louisiana Avenue NW
> Washington, D.C.
20001
> Direct Phone: 1.202.879.3863
> Direct Fax:
1.202.626.1747
> Mobile Phone: 1.703.629.3963
>
>
>
> "Philip
> Sheppard" To: "Joe Sims"
>
<jsims@jonesday.com>
> <philip.sheppard cc:
<council@dnso.org>
> @aim.be> Subject: [council] Status
>
report on implementation of evolution and
> reform
> Sent
by:
> owner-council@dn
> so.org
>
>
> 07/16/02
10:59
> AM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Joe, thank you for your intervention but you have confused
> two
issues. (Or
> in my usual short-hand I failed to explain them, most
probably.)
> My key concern is not the number of Board members voted by
> the new SO (2
> now not 3) . This is a concern but as you say
can be more
> easily balanced
> in aggregate by a nom
com.
>
> The concern is the reduction in constituency
reps(council
> members) on the
> new GNSO council from 2 to 3.
The membership of many
> constituencies has a
> typical profile
in order of magnitude:
> US
> European
> Asia
Pacific
> ROW
>
> So in an election for reps there is
likely to be a first
> preference going
> to a US candidate and
the rest of the world must fight over the other
> place.
>
> Take the BC as an example. Today we have three reps in three
>
broad time
> zones. Marilyn in the US, me in Europe and Grant in Asia
Pacific. This
> means we are in touch with the culture of these three
> significant economic
> blocks. Our reps are in contact with the
governments in their
> regions. It
> means that when we need to
contact our members by telephone, we have a
> member in the right time
zone. When we have a chance to go to regional
> meetings (as I did last
week in Paris) a BC rep can attend and discuss
> issues face to face
with members from the region. All this
> is diluted with
> 2 reps
per constituency on the Council. Diluting the ability
> of Council
to
> represent the Constituency is bad for Constituency outreach
and
> representation. This is bad for the Council and bad for
ICANN.
>
> Maintaining 3 reps per constituency as Council members
is the
> implementation we seek from the ERC.
>
>
>
Philip
>
>
>
>
>
> ==========
>
The preceding e-mail message (including any attachments) contains
>
information that may be confidential, be protected by the
>
attorney-client
> or other applicable privileges, or constitute
non-public
> information. It
> is intended to be conveyed only to
the designated
> recipient(s). If you are
> not an intended
recipient of this message, please notify the sender by
> replying to
this message and then delete it from your system. Use,
> dissemination,
distribution, or reproduction of this message
> by unintended
>
recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful.
> ==========
>
>
>
>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|