DNSO Mailling lists archives


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

RE: [council] Observers at NC meetings

I must say that I do not agree with Cary's recommendations. I believe that the 
NC reps must be elected as representatives and will have to upon some occasions
make judgments. In most circumstances, consultation time is available to the
NC reps... of course, we are all very busy people, and that consultation  is 
time consuming.  We all understand that.

I see a different problem and it needs to be dealt with within each constituency.
that is what an effective consultation process is which can work for them needs further
development -- after all, this is a young process.  Folks, we all seem to keep forgetting 
that. Each of the constituencies is still developing effective models, it seems to me, and 
they will vary constituency by constituency. And, given the evolution process underway, perhaps
constituencies will be considering what adjustments they need to make in their internal

However, a different point:  Policy development which affects the global Internet is complex, 
even, or especially in the limited but critical areas of ICANN's responsibility -- it is different than merely 
getting in a room and negotiating what works for one's individual constituency, but
requires understanding and support for outcomes which benefit the broader Internet interests
while reflecting the balance of views and interests of the participants in the SO.

And, no, in my view, the responsibilty for that is not solely at the Board level.

I hope we all consider that.

-----Original Message-----
From: Joe Sims [mailto:jsims@jonesday.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2002 10:06 AM
To: Cary Karp
Cc: council@dnso.org
Subject: Re: [council] Observers at NC meetings

FWIW, which may not be much here in your judgment --

This seems a very odd request to me.  If the NC rep is nothing more than a
conduit for majority opinion in his/her constituency, why do we need a NC
or for that matter a SO?  Why not just have the constituencies deal
directly with the Board, since the NC under these circumstances is not
offering any value added to the process?  The idea for the SO is that it is
a way to develop consensus where possible; the idea for the NC is that it
is not possible to have all parties individually participating in every
discussion and decision, and thus they elect representatives to "represent"
them.  At least in my mind, this does not mean simply conveying the
collective opinions of those who selected the reps, but selecting someone
to exercise their best efforts to do what the NC is supposed to do -- find
consensus where possible, and report where not.  If a US congressman had to
poll his constituents every time he was going to vote, the congress would
grind to a halt.  Putting aside the substantive question of whether the
country would be better off, if this is to be the role of the SO, we don't
need it.  If the constituency reps don't do their job to the liking of the
people who put them there, they can unelect them in the next round, but in
the meantime, they have a job to do, and it is not as vote recorder for
their constituents.  If the SO system is to survive, and you are all aware
that there is a substantial body of opinion that it should not, it is going
to have to show that it can contribute to the effective carrying out of
ICANN's responsibilities, and this means a NC that accepts its
responsibilities to do work and take positions that may not, in every
instance, satisfy every (or sometimes maybe even none) of the members of
the constituencies that put them there.  I would offer the Board as a good
example, where I dare say that the votes of each Board member do not
necessarily reflect the majority views of their "constituents," because
they recognize they have a broader responsibility.  So does the NC.

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

                    Cary Karp                                                                                      
                    <ck@nic.museum>      To:     council@dnso.org                                                  
                    Sent by:             Subject:     [council] Observers at NC meetings                           
                    07/25/02 09:42                                                                                 

The gTLD Constituency discusses items on NC meeting agendas prior to
every such occasion. The constituency's representatives on the NC then
put the constituency's views forward during the NC meetings and vote
according to prior agreement. Sometimes this works just fine. Other
times it doesn't. I assume that both the procedure and resulting
experience are shared by us all.

If a question is called in a form that differs from what is expected
on the basis of pre-meeting publication, it may be difficult for NC
members to predict how their constituencies would feel about the final
form of a modified motion. To be sure, it is within our mandate to
exercise individual judgement while at the table - indeed, it's our
obligation - but this doesn't free us from accountability to those who
put us there. Again, this means that sometimes things may take a wrong
turn from one or more perspectives. Anything that we can reasonably do
to minimize the likelihood of this happening should be of obvious

In times past, listen-only channels were made available to anyone who
wanted to follow NC deliberations in real time. Whatever other purpose
this might have served, it made it possible for NC members to confer
with their constituencies in real time, thus enhancing the likelihood
that formal action taken by those at the table could reflect changes
in constituency viewpoint in light of what was said during the

Is there any possibility of our reestablishing some form of auditor
participation in NC meetings?  At the very least, it might be worth
providing this functionality to constituency chairs. (Perhaps a
similar approach might reduce some of the critical aspects of the
number of seats on the gestational Mk II councils?)

As an alternative, given that we have significantly decreased the
interval between our meetings, perhaps we could routinely defer to the
next subsequent meeting any vote on a motion that is called in a form
or manner not posted prior to the meeting at which the motion is


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 >>>