DNSO Mailling lists archives


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

Re: [nc-str] Final terms of reference

Welcome Raul.
Some comments based on Philip's text, and attempting to take into account other postings since.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2001 10:20 PM
Subject: [nc-str] Final terms of reference

Thank you for your comments.
>1. On Peter's comments on scope.
>I would have thought the phrase "and other related proposals " is sufficient.
I appreciate that we're not drafting a regulation, but there is no need for words which have a meaning being included unless that meaning is understood, and agreed as necessary. There is no requirement that the considerations of this TF should be restricted to "related" proposals. Un-related proposals are just as valid, and will not require to pass some unspecified "relatedness" test before being considered. I assume you also meant to include  reference to the proposal from the GA for an individuals constituency?
The point is not taken in your draft below, in relation to the timetable. I assume this is an oversight, and that
the TF timetable will not exclude consideration of other proposals received by the Board by the stated date.
I suggest that this be made explicit by deleting the currently limiting reference to only two proposals.
>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.
My recollection of the LA discussion was that we had two proposals, and that we should have a cutoff in relation to others. I have no difficulty with mentioning those as the leading candidates, but am careful not to restrict our scope to only those. OTOH, I think it advisable to be considering only those proposals which have been received by the Board, so that we are limited to those which have a certain credibility/preparedness and support.
On this point, I agree with your recent comment to RE, that we will be including in that a consideration of Board seats, as that is/will be a part of the formal proposals. Howver, we are considering actual proposals, and do not have a mandate to create our own vision of what  might be done  to re-structure ICANN.
>2. On Raul's comments on board seats, a small TF meeting in LA indeed also agreed that we should not focus on these.
>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.
I am happy to be guided by the proceduralists-if there is an NC rule that TF's have co-chairs, then we have no option, whatever we think of the rule. Can someone point to the rule? Or is it merely advisory, or customary.?
If its not a rule, I am happy not to have a co-chair.
I'm quite happy having Philip as chair, provided that its non-voting, and that Marilyn C. is the representative for the BC.
>4. On Marks' comment on the quality of stakeholder representation - this seems a good criteria to add.
Mark's point was "efficacy of stakeholder representation" which is different from "quality" of those reps.
I think the issue is understood as whether each re-structuring proposals result in all stakeholders affected by a proposal being represented, followed by an overall look at stakeholder representation on the Board. "Quality" means:- of the proposal to achieve adequate, balanced and fair stakeholder representation. I have added suggested wording below to the evaluation criteria..
>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.
I am not sure why you have not removed the part about ratios. I have yet to see an explanation for this.
I assume it is to be deleted. In case this has been overlooked I have pasted below my earlier comments under this paragraph.
Terms of reference for the NC TF on structure
NC task force on Structure
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
Philip, I see you still want to measure the effectiveness of DNSO decision making by reference to a ratio which seems to me to have no meaning or use. How do you propose, in January, to predict those new "unique issues" which will arise in the ALSO? Do you have a one year or ten year time frame for these new issues to arise in? Is it some attempt at measuring how busy new SO's will be compared with that of the DNSO. If the answer is 1:3, what will this mean???
- mechanisms for cross-SO communication
- effect on the DNSO consensus process.
- likelihood of the proposal to achieve adequate, balanced and fair stakeholder representation in the DNSO
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
(suggest delete)- the effect on the quality of stakeholder representation on the Board
Suggest replace by )- likelihood of the proposal to achieve adequate, balanced and fair stakeholder representation on the Board

The task force will consider proposals made to the Board ( suggest delete 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

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