Draft DNSO Names Council Resolution on Reform - following Bucharest v1


Draft NC resolution on Reform – following Bucharest v1

Whereas the Names Council has produced a set of recommendations for ICANN evolution and reform;

 Whereas, the ICANN Board at its Bucharest meeting in June 2002 resolved that the Board endorses the Evolution and Reform Committee (ERC) Blueprint for Reform, and described it as being broad outlines;

Whereas the Board instructed the ERC to oversee implementation with the participation of the ICANN community;

Whereas the Board resolved that further opportunities for strengthening ICANN's capacity to fulfill its mission should be utilized;

Whereas the Board instructed the ERC to take due account of certain fundamental issues:

§         geographic and cultural diversity in all parts of ICANN structure,

§         a policy development processes that enhances and promotes a transparent bottom-up process.


The Names Council resolves therefore to recommend the following implementation of the Blueprint, without which ICANN will fail to take account of the above fundamental issues.

1. Policy development support

The key failure in policy development to date is a result of lack of funding to provide staff support for policy development. Unless ICANN is allowed to adopt the budget it needs, it will perform poorly. Unless that funding allows for staff support to policy development, policy development will be poor. Other changes will be insufficient to make a difference without action on these two enabling conditions of success.

(r1[1] ICANN’s policy development bodies should be made more effective by the provision of full-time staff to support all aspects of policy making including a co-ordinating secretariat and staff support to policy-making task forces and similar groups.

2. GNSO steering committee (council)

(r19) The stakeholders in the gTLD policy development body should elect representatives to a Council or similar body. 

Moreover, the Blueprint’s proposed two representatives per Constituency fails the Board’s test of geographic and cultural diversity. This may well result in one US representative per Constituency with the rest of the world left to fight for the other seat. There should be at least three representatives per Constituency.

Further, the NC believes the steering committees should select all their own members and their own chairs. The objective of imposed steering committee members and an imposed chair from a Nominating Committee fails the Board’s test of a bottom-up process.

3. Board Composition

(r29) The policy development bodies should elect an equal number of Board members.

To pass the Board’s test of diversity, this number should be at least three per policy development body.

(r30) A nominating committee should select a quota of Board seats which will be less than or equal in number to those elected from the policy development bodies. A Nominating Committee with any role beyond this fails the Board’s test of a bottom-up process.


[1] Numbers in brackets refer to existing NC recommendations.

Drafted by Philip Sheppard, DNSO Names Council Chair

Information from:
© DNSO Names Council