DNSO Mailling lists archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [council] Status report on implementation of evolution and reform


speaking only for myself at the moment (but commiting to keep the ERC

On Thu, 18 Jul 2002, Antonio Harris wrote:

> I would like to express my support for Philip's comments.
> I disagree with Ken's statement that  "it is incumbent on us
> that we allow the collective "fruits of our labor" to become a reality. "
> The Blueprint can hardly be presented as such, since it chooses to
> ignore the many voices raised in Bucharest in favour of maintaining
> three GNSO elected board directors, and also in keeping three
> representatives per constituency on the Council. The fruits of our
> labour, as presented in NC responses to the ERC, were not deemed
> adequate to the reformers' intent.

This characterization is sad but inaccurate. The ERC did accomodate a
number of comments in and after the Bucharest meeting, as did the Board.
Most of the large change was incorporated into the blueprint, and it is
clear that the process that lead to the blueprint incorporated much of the
though of the DNSO and in particular, its embodiment in the Names
Council's discussions (not only the resolutions).

> Considering the volume of involvement a Council representative is called
> upon to pursue, (for example I participate in the Whois and UDRP task
> forces, as well as the Budget Committee), the blanket of constituency
> coverage barely manages to cover the neck and toes of the numerous
> activities. Reducing the amount of council representatives per constituency,
> would not appear to ease this load, but rather increase it...
> Getting to Geographical diversity in the board, nomcom and council,
> the concern may seem trivial to some, but those of us who have
> followed the ICANN process since the days of IFWP, can vouch
> for the fact that it was some time before geographical diversity was
> written into the bylaws, and, even when that happened, the initial
> ICANN Board was excepted from complying with this (although it
> was clearly specified in the White Paper). The Blueprint includes
> some statements referring to the need for geographical diversity,
> but a reduced board and council will mean reduced diversity,
> there can be little doubt about that.

As often during the previous stage of the reform process, here we have two
courses of action to pursue in parallel:

1. provide new arguments against the blueprint.

2. provide new solutions within the framework of the blueprint.

Much was gained by playing both at the same time in the March-June period.
I and many others are more inclined for #2 now.

> Then, and speaking for myself, my suggestion as to the new
> council composition would be the following:
> Since each constituency is to send a "delegate" to the NomCom,
> let that delegate sit on the Council as the third Constituency council
> member, and forget about three NomCom appointees being seated
> on the Council. I mean, other than at election time, what work will
> the NomCom have to do ?

This is an interesting angle which I will convey to the rest of the ERC.
While more discussion on this has taken place in the last few days, the
arguments seem to be converging (unfortunately not to a shared view).

> Finally, to address the calls to cooperation with the ERC for
> implementation of the Blueprint, it might be fair to ask when has
> the Names Council been uncooperative ? Seeking some respect
> for our points of view does not, in my understanding, place us in
> a non-cooperative mode.

Tony, I think that the March-June period showed the richness of
cooperation that is just within our reach. Let's not stop looking for a
solution within the blueprint's framework.


Alejandro Pisanty

> Tony Harris
>  ----- Original Message -----
>   From: Philip Sheppard
>   To: Joe Sims
>   Cc: council@dnso.org
>   Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2002 9:39 AM
>   Subject: [council] Status report on implementation of evolution and reform
>   Joe et al,
>   I do believe that the quality and nature of constituency representation on the new GNSO council is an implementation issue within the context of the Board's resolution. Specifically the tests of bottom-up, and diversity are not passed by the current proposal.
>   A compelling argument for change (from the ERC) = a compelling argument for the status quo.
>   First lets clarify numbers in a GNSO of six constituencies. The ERC current model is 6x2 + 3 = 15.
>   Our model is either 6x3 = 18 (preferred), or 6x3 + 3 = 21 (if the ERC insist on nom com people too).
>   Why is a smaller council likely to be better ?
>   FOR: a smaller council of opposing interests it is hoped will work together better. This assumes any past NC failure is a function of lack of NC member co-operation. History tells us this is not the case. NC failure has been slowness due to lack of professional staff support.
>   AGAINST: a smaller council is more subject to disruption by one disruptive member.
>   AGAINST: a smaller council is more likely to have a meeting with an entire constituency missing due to external pressures on members.
>   So, are the untested advantages of small better than the advantages of a marginally bigger NC (18 not 15)?
>   The disadvantages of 2 reps per constituency are in my view compelling:
>   1.Diversity. 2 reps will tend to polarise - one US, one rest of world.
>   2.Outreach. Lack of direct connection from council member to region.
>   3.Representation. With 2 reps, most ICANN regions will not be represented by constituency at council. Today most are.
>   I fully support working towards implementation and am pleased to be a part of the ERC policy development TF but I do consider the above to be of outstanding importance.
>   Philip Sheppard

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>