----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2001 10:20
Subject: [nc-str] Final terms of
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
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
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
If its not a rule, I am happy not to have a
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
>What is concrete is the ALSC - there is a
>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
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
Terms of reference for the NC TF on
NC task force on Structure
one representative from each constituency
and one from the GA, chaired by the chair of the
Members: Chair Philip
Bohannon, BC Marilyn Cade, gTLDs David Johnson, ccTLDs Peter Dengate-Thrush,
Registrars Ken Stubbs, Non-Commercials Raul Echeberria, ISP Tony Holmes, GA
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
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
- 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
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 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
gathering/evaluation - December/January
Initial report 31 January 2002
Interim ICANN Ghana March