DNSO Mailling lists archives


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

[ga] RE: Questions on the draft BC Position Paper

Danny, I appreciate your questions, but I should clarify that the purpose of this document within the BC was to ensure that the BC had a document which outlined "agreed to concepts and principles." We certainly understand that we, as BC reps need to be able to respond to solutions, and to propose solutions, and since we can't predict every option which will be presented, we wanted to be guided by concepts and principles that are based on consultation with the BC membership. 

I hope that clarifies the purpose of the document.   At this point, any further details and answers would only be my personal thoughts.  

But, you are certainly right, the BC does hope to contribute some ideas/solutions for consideration which can also be part of the input considered by the GA and the NC.   

-----Original Message-----
From: DannyYounger@cs.com [mailto:DannyYounger@cs.com]
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2002 11:54 AM
To: ga@dnso.org
Cc: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
Subject: Questions on the draft BC Position Paper


I wanted to take a moment to thank you for producing the document "Toward a 
Business Constituency Position on ICANN Restructuring and Evolution" posted 
at http://www.bizconst.org/BCpositionevolution-final%20draft1.0.doc

I have some initial questions regarding your position paper (and please 
excuse me if these questions have already been asked... unfortunately your 
constituency does not appear to accept the concept of transparency and does 
not provide a publicly archived discussion list):

1.  You state that ICANN must <<Ensure that policy development remains a 
consensus, bottom up process, with all stakeholders represented>>  yet you 
don't outline a plan by which this may be accomplished.  Can you elaborate?
2.  You request that ICANN <<Provide staff support to all parts of the policy 
development process>>.  Currently Louis Touton sits in on most NC 
teleconferences, and the registrars, gTLDs and ccTLDs already have staff 
liaisons (several).  We have Board directors that have participated in open 
Working Groups (remember those?), and Board directors that communicate 
directly with constituencies (such as Alejandro with the NCDNHC, and Vint 
with the GA).  What exactly do you have in mind?
3.  You state that ICANN must <<Work to achieve effective and mutually 
agreeable, models for the RIRs, Root Server operators and technical 
community, to participate in ICANN>>.  By "models" do you mean "contracts"?  
These groups already do participate in ICANN through SOs and Standing 
Committees, so perhaps I don't understand your point.
4.  On the issue of funding, you support <<existing practice>>, and recommend 
that ICANN <<Maintain contributions from ccTLDs and RIRs>>  You also advise 
ICANN to <<not seek government funding>>.  Candidly, these statements do 
little to attend to the issues of funding... could you perhaps outline a real 
plan?  How exactly will ICANN maintain funding from the ccTLDs?
5.  Regarding the Independent Review Panel, you have proposed a <<committee 
which could include, the GAC chair, the IAB chair, two board members or past 
board members, and an appointed and paid ombudsman>>.    What do you see as 
the merits of a Panel with this particular composition?
6.  You state  <<Develop model for board size and composition which ensures 
the board can function while reflecting the establishment of the ccTLD as an 
entity separate from the gTLD entity>>.  The ccTLDs as a constituency are 
already an entity separate from the gTLDs as a constituency.  Are you seeking 
a higher degree of representation on the Board for the ccTLD and  gTLD 
constituencies?  Why?  Should registries have a greater degree of 
representation than registrars?  Should these groups have a higher degree of 
representation than other constituencies?  If so, why?
7.  You state  <<Provide a mechanism to include as ex-officio members the 
chairs of advisory bodies that are created in the restructuring. [GAC, 
etc.]>>  As all Supporting Organizations are advisory bodies, are you 
recommending that in addition to the Board Directors that these groups elect, 
we also create ex-officio positions on the Board for the Chairs of these 
groups?  What is the rationale behind such a suggestion?  Isn't the Board 
large enough already?  What do we gain by adding non-voting members to the 
8.  You indicate that ICANN should <<Examine whether the GA can support 
structured discussion forums on policy issues to ensure diversity of input>>. 
 What exactly do you mean by this?  The GA already provides a greater degree 
of discussion on topics than any other constituent or structured forum.  What 
is it that requires examination?
9.  With regard to the At-Large, you state <<Preserve the existing five at 
large seats either by 1) extending existing five elected members or 2) having 
an interim appointment process to fill those seats>>.   I don't think we need 
even more board-squatters (even if they are At-Large representatives).  
Please describe the interim appointment process that you propose.  Who will 
make these appointments?
10.  You have stated that the BC supports the principle of 
<<representation>>.  How do you propose to provide representation for domain 
name holders and others that are currently not represented in the process?

more questions will follow... I look forward to your elucidations.
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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