[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.
From: DannyYounger@cs.com [mailto:DannyYounger@cs.com]
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2002 11:54 AM
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
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 firstname.lastname@example.org list.
Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html