[ga] Re: (Fwd) a cctld representative

[barrister@chambers.gen.nz]

    Dear Stuart,
    I'd prefer this exchange to stay on the public lists, and assume you have no problem 
    with that.

    On 13 Mar 2003 at 18:54, M. Stuart Lynn wrote:
    > Dear Peter:
    > 
    > Thank you for your input.

    > I find it odd that you should think that a board as globally diverse
    > as is that of ICANN selected Mr. Staley because of his alleged (by
    > you)  pro-U.S. bias.  I also find it odd that you should consider a
    > process to be closed and secretive when solicitations and nominations
    > were openly posted on our website and an email request for suggestions
    > went to every ccTLD administrator.

    I should be very glad to see the nominations that were made, and what result there 
    was to the solicitations made. Can you point me to where the nominations are 
    listed? Thanks.  
    > Could it be that Mr. Staley is in fact very well-qualified if you
    > analyze the requirements for a member of the Nominating Committee?
    > Independent of his nationality. Or am I perceiving traditional rivalry
    > between Australia and New Zealand?
    > 
    I make no coment at all about Mr Staley's suitability. but about the process of 
    appointment.

    > And then again, I did not see any interesting nominations come in from
    > you or for you. Or from any member of the ccTLD Admin. Or from the
    > ccTLD Admin collectively.  Did we miss something? I come from a school
    > that believes that if one does not choose to participate in a process,
    > one can hardly be surprised at the outcome.

    Yes, you missed something.

    The solicitation read in part:
     
    "To the ccTLD community:

       ICANN's reform process has resulted in adoption of a Nominating Committee
       mechanism for selection of qualified candidates to ICANN's Board of Directors (8
       seats), the At-Large Advisory Committee (5 seats), and the GNSO Council (3
       seats). (When the Country-Code Names Supporting Organization is formed, three
       of its eighteen members will also be selected by the Nominating Committee.)"

    I for one found this final statement breathtakingly arrogant.

    The cctld opposition to having appointments from the Nominating Committee is well 
    publicised and well known. It can be seen, for example in the first statements made 
    in response to the Blueprint in Bucharest, and most recently confirmed at the 
    APTLD AGM by that regional association. An extract from the AGM's statement is 
    pasted below, and has been sent to the Icann reeform site:

    Preliminary Recommendations on ccNSO Council
    
3.1.APTLD confirms that the council comprise fifteen voting members 
    being three from each geographical region[1]. The ccTLDs have established 
    regular liaisons with the other ICANN constituencies and SOs and because 
    of our responsibilities to the local Internet communities have taken into 
    account the interests and viewpoints of the wider Internet stakeholders.
    
3.2.Should the Board ignore the strong feeling and appoint council 
    members via the Nominating Committee, then natural justice requires that 
    ccTLDs be represented on that committee.

    I understand that at least Centr has also continued with its rejection of this feature.

    How you can be publishing a statement like that in the solicitation, when the issue of 
    the ccSO hangs in the balance simply escapes me.

    We have been led to believe that if the cctlds come to Rio, and debate the report of 
    the assistance group, or the ERC comments on it, that that debate will actually be 
    taken into account in framing any bylaws setting up an SO.

    This statement makes it clear that despite a continuation of unanimous rejection of 
    that principle by the cctlds, at least the Chair of the ERC intends to carry on with a 
    SO which suits him, not the intended members.

    I'd be very interested in your view about this point. 

    Do you accept that rejection of this principle by the cctlds meeting in Rio will result 
    in this feature of the Blueprint being removed?

    If not, what is to be gained by debate in the face of pre-determined positions?

    So, you see that the issue of the Nominating Committee rather turns on the issue of 
    the shape of the SO.

    If the cctlds don't like it, and decide in any reasonable numbers not to join ICANN, 
    they have little or no interest in who sits on the Appointments Committee.

    If they do get an SO in a form which they choose to join, they don't need 
    membership of that committee, as it will not be making appointments to their 
    Council, and they see it as inappropriate to have a voice in making appointments to 
    other bodies. 

    If there is to be appointments by an appointments committee to the ccSO, ( lets not 
    rule out this, for the sake of argument ) then you can expect to hear from the cc's on 
    what they consider is an appropriate level of membership - one out 19 members 
    strikes us as rather limited.

    So I rather think this uncertainty is behind why you heard nothing from the Adcom 
    and from other cctlds.


    > And your statement about obtaining consensus views shows that you do
    > not understand how the Nominating Committee is supposed to work.
    > Members are delegates not representatives.

    Probably true -its irrelevance to the possible place for cctlds in ICANN has meant 
    few of us have studied it much. I personally think its a camel of an idea.

     Once appointed, they act in
    > the way they think best bringing their own broad experiences and
    > contacts to the table. As far as directors with a representative
    > flavor are concerned, the ccNSO, once formed, would elect two
    > Directors.
    >
    Which raises another interesting issue. If an SO is formed and only a few countries 
    join, say the few countries who have signed contracts, would those few still be 
    entitled to two board seats? Why?
    > Cheers -- hope to see you in Rio.
    >
    Absolutely. I think organising cctld meetings alongside ICANN's meetings is useful 
    way to exhange ideas, and trust that it continues.

    Regards

    Peter
    > Stuart
    > 
    > >------- Forwarded message follows -------
    > >From:          	Self <barrister@chambers.gen.nz>
    > >To:            	board@icann.org, lynn@icann,
    > >	org
    > >Subject:       	a cctld representative
    > >Copies to:     	ga@dnso.org, cctld-discuss@wwtld.org
    > >Date sent:     	Fri, 14 Mar 2003 14:42:13 +1300
    > >
    > >Dear Board,
    > >I gather the board has appointed a representative to act as the cctld
    > >representative on the Nominating committee.
    > >
    > >The board is to be congratulated. Faced with the huge diversity of
    > >opinion, geography, legal tradition, ethnicity and language that the
    > >cctlds represent, which causes we elected officials of cctld
    > >instituitions so much time and trouble in establishing consensus
    > >positions on key matters, the board has been able, by a secret
    > >process, to appoint a white, middle- aged male, from a country with
    > >an Anglo-Saxon based linguistic and legal tradition closely similar
    > >to that of the US.
    > >
    > >Of course, the board is also entirely justified in selecting someone
    > >from one of the very few countries to actually sign a contract with
    > >ICANN.
    > >
    > >Doubtless the board has prepared answers to those who will suggest
    > >that such a representative is non-representational. Similarly, the
    > >board will be able to ridicule any who were to suggest that the fact
    > >that Australia is one of the few countries in the world supporting
    > >the current US approach to honouring UN resolutions, or that the next
    > >Chair of ICANN is from Australia, or that Australia's long term
    > >support of the GAC has anything to do with this appointment.
    > >
    > >All of these answers will no doubt ring with the authenticity of a
    > >board devoted to the principles of open and transparent process, and
    > >with an eye to persuading the cctlds that ICANN is an organisation
    > >which they should join.
    > >
    > >I look forward to learning of the mechanism by which he will be
    > >provided with the consensus views of the cctlds in order to carry out
    > >the function. Doubtless another bottom-up, transparent and
    > >consultative process will be adopted, as a result of which cctlds
    > >will be told what their representative has done.
    > >
    > >My regards
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >Peter Dengate Thrush
    > >
    > >------- End of forwarded message -------
    > 
    > 
    > -- 
    > 
    > __________________
    > Stuart Lynn
    > President and CEO
    > ICANN
    > 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330
    > Marina del Rey, CA 90292
    > Tel: 310-823-9358
    > Fax: 310-823-8649
    > Email: lynn@icann.org


--
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