Re: [nc-str] Final terms of reference

[Raul Echeberria <raul@inia.org.uy>]

At 10:20 a.m. 29/11/01 +0100, Philip Sheppard wrote:
> Thank you for your
> comments.


Unhappily, I didn't have enough time to make better comments. Only two
days and with mailing list's problems which didn't allow me receive mails
from other. 
The public archives of this list are not easy to access trough the DNSO
website.

In reference with your synthesis of the Final Terms:

There is an strong emphasis in the result of the TF's LA meeting.
Obviously I didn't participate. 
I have checked the archives of the list and didn't see any minutes of
this meeting. Neither the agreements nor the participants. But if at
least two persons (Peter and I) suggest changes to the LA agreements, it
means that you can not take them as a sacred text.

Some other comments below.

>  
> 1. On Peter's comments on scope.
> I would have thought the phrase "and
> other related proposals " is sufficient.
>  
> The meeting in LA agreed to focus initially on proposals
> from the ALSC and DNSO constituencies.Lets keep this in for now (its
> under time frame only) and consider later if we want to go broader. A
> comparison of our analysis of the ALSC and earlier calls for an
> Individuals Constituency within the DNSO I agree would be
> useful.
>  
> 2. On Raul's comments on board seats, a small TF meeting in
> LA indeed also agreed that we should not focus on these.

Once again the LA agreements. Please agree with me that there is a
difference between "not focus on board seats" and "board
seats discussion is out of the scope of this TF". Whar are we saying
in this case, we will not focus on that or we will not work on that?.
If you check the mails sent to te list and the documents that you have
circulated early, there are important references to the distribution of
the board seats. 
Is not enough clear what will be our work. 

>  
> 3. On Raul's proposal for a co-chair, we agreed that having
> the NC chair to oversee process was a good way forward. In general, I do
> not believe a co-chair idea is that helpful. It can slow progress.

Philip: could you concede me at least one? :) 

I think that there is an over representation of the BC. You and Marilyn
are both too actives representatives of the BC and you are not only an
administrative chair. I didn't propose that you would not participate in
the TF, but two co-chairs clearly would give us a more balanced style.

The contents of the mails in the list only give me the right. 

>  
> 4. On Marks' comment on the quality of stakeholder
> representation - this seems a good criteria to add.
>  
> This TF has a tight deadline. The Board has asked for
> initial comments on ALSC by Dec 15 - which is unlikely.  I would
> have thought it better to focus on the concrete and look later at the
> possible.
> What is concrete is the ALSC - there is a report.
> What is likely is a written proposal from the CCTLDs. 
>  
> Lets us do these first. If after that we have time/energy to
> look wider - that's fine. So the final TOR should now be as
> below.
>  
> Philip
> -----------------------------------------------
>  
> Terms of reference for the NC TF on structure 
>  
> Name 
> NC task force on Structure 
> Composition 
> one representative from each constituency and one from the GA, chaired by
> the chair of the NC.  
>
> Members: Chair Philip
> IP Mark Bohannon, BC Marilyn Cade, gTLDs David Johnson, ccTLDs Peter
> Dengate-Thrush, Registrars Ken Stubbs, Non-Commercials Raul Echeberria,
> ISP Tony Holmes, GA Dave Farrar
> Terms of reference 
> To produce a timely impact assessment on 
> a) the efficacy of policy making within the DNSO, and 
> b) the efficacy of ICANN decision making 
> as a result of the proposals from the at-large study committee, the
> desire of the ccTLDs to form their own supporting organisation and other
> related proposals and;
>  
> To produce a recommendation to the Names Council based on this
> assessment.
>  
> To achieve this the task force should briefly evaluate proposals for
> re-structuring against the following criteria:
> 1. 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
> - mechanisms for cross-SO communication
> - effect on the DNSO consensus process.
> 2. the efficacy of ICANN decision making
> - the ability of each proposal to generate valid consensus-based policy
> making 
> - possibility of the Board receiving contradictory advice from its SOs
> and the impact on resolution mechanisms
> - likely financial and representational robustness of any SO
> - the effect on the quality of stakeholder representation on the
> Board
>  
>
> Timeframe:
> The task force will consider proposals made to the Board by the ALSC or
> DNSO constituencies  before 31 January 2002.
> Agreement on terms of reference  28 November
> Development of principles and criteria  10 December
> Data gathering/evaluation - December/January
>
> Initial report 31 January 2002
> Interim ICANN Ghana March 2002
> Final TBD