RE: [nc-str] Re: Fw: Extended terms of reference -- a few suggested changes
I have thought that the Structure TF would consider proposals in relation to
their impact/support of developing policy, etc. I would urge that we not
focus on the number of board seats but instead on how structure supports
effective policy development and then policy acceptance from the board
If we focus on "numbers", we will never get the work of the TF underway.
:-) As proposals are evaluated it will become apparent what their
recommendation is on the number of board seats. Most importantly, I hope
will be how and whether effective cross stakeholder bottom up policy
development processes are supported.
Secondly, I believe that having only one chair can work best. We each will
need to be working backward into our constituencies on input--I see the role
of the chair as a neutral role more focused on process and ensuring input
and balance. I think that is why we agreed to have the NC chair in this TF.
From: Raul Echeberria [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2001 12:50 PM
Subject: [nc-str] Re: Fw: Extended terms of reference -- a few suggested
Sorry for the delay in my comments, but I have joined to the TF just two
days ago, then I'm trying to inform my self in those topics.
I include some comments below.
At 01:34 p.m. 26/11/01 +0100, Philip Sheppard wrote:
>Raul, welcome to the task force on structure. We are just completing a
>discussion on our terms of reference. Marilyn Cade made this proposal to
>my original - and I am happy with it.We will start work shortly.
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
>To: <mailto:email@example.com>'Structure TF-DNSO'
>Cc: <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>'Philip Sheppard' ;
>Sent: 23 November 2001 17:51
>Subject: Extended terms of reference -- a few suggested changes
>From: Marilyn Cade, BC rep to TF
>Expanded terms of reference for the NC TF on structure
>The terms below provide detail to the outline TOR previously circulated to
>the task force.
>NC task force on Structure
>one representative from each constituency and one from the GA, chaired by
>the chair of the NC.
I propose two representatives for each constituency (only one voting
Another proposal is to have two chairs. One of them would be the NC Chair
and the other from the constituency's representatives.
>Members: Chair Philip Sheppard
>IP Mark Bohannon, BC Marilyn Cade, gTLDs David Johnson, ccTLDs Peter
>Dengate Thrush, Registrars Ken Stubbs, Non-Commercials ?, ISP Tony Holmes,
>GA Dave Farrar
>Terms of reference
>To produce a timely impact assessment on
>a) the efficacy of ICANN decision making and
>b) the efficacy of policy making within the DNSO,
>as a result of the proposals from the at-large study committee, the desire
>of the ccTLDs to form their own supporting organization and other related
>To produce a recommendation to the Names Council on key re-structuring
>To achieve this the task force should briefly evaluate proposals for
>re-structuring against the following criteria:
>1. the efficacy of ICANN decision making.
>- the ability of each proposal to generate valid consensus-based policy
>- possibility of the Board receiving contradictory advice from its SOs and
>the impact on resolution mechanisms
>- likely financial and representational robustness of any SO.
>2. the efficacy of policy making within the DNSO
>- degree of formal interaction between stakeholders
>- ratio of unique issues of a new SO outside the competence of DNSO versus
>issues within competence of DNSO
>- effect on the DNSO consensus process.
>3. Other: to be developed
It is clear that once we begin to discuss possible restructures, we will
put on the table the distribution of the Non- At Large Directors. Then it
is possible that we indirectly would introduce the discussion about how
many AL directors there should be.
My view is that we have to discuss with independence of the possible future
resolutions about the number of AL Directors. We have to figure out
possible structures which could be workable if finally ICANN decide to have
50%-50% distribution (AL Directors- Non AL Directors) or if the decision
include differente ratios of representation.
If this is the understanding of everybody in this group, ok, but if there
are different views, then I'd like to include some clarifications in those
P.S. - Sorry once again for comment that in the last day.