[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ifwp] Re: Monterrey Report
- Date: Thu, 26 Nov 1998 12:00:34 +0000
- From: Jeff Williams <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: Re: [ifwp] Re: Monterrey Report
Bret and all,
We agree with Bret on these reasons. They are sound. It is also
important that the ICANN get together the Individual Membership
Organization. This is important as the Individual Membership
Organization should be the focal point in which balance of power
to the SO's as the Individual Membership Organization should
have the final approval of any determination on any Director
coming form the SO's by majority vote. This would of course
meant that possibly the SO's would need to put up more than
Bret Fausett wrote:
> >> There is a big
> >> difference between a Names Council that has policy making
> >> power and one that just has the responsibility of
> >> coordinating a consensus building process within the total
> >> DNSO.
> >This question was brought up in Monterrey. I and others argued for the
> >latter function of the Names Council, and suggested that in that case
> >each constituency would need only a single representative on it, since
> >that person would simply be conveying the decisions of the
> >constituency's members.
> It seems to me that there are at least three reasons for having a Names
> Council composed of more than one representative from each constituency.
> First is to distribute power. No matter how narrowly we conceive the role
> of the Names Council, even the power to set an agenda, draft meeting
> minutes, coordinate consensus and report to the ICANN Board is power.
> This is especially true in a new organization, where there is uncertain
> leadership and no clear patterns or precedents for decision-making. More
> participants on the NC dillutes the power of any one person to control
> the process.
> Second is trust. One of the key themes running through the ICANN
> Cambridge meeting was whether we trusted this board. While there were
> additional reasons that this was a concern with the ICANN board, it is a
> concern with *any* new organization. How can a new group of people who
> are unfamiliar with each other, who may be competitors in their various
> markets, and who have never worked together before trust one another
> enough to elect just *one* of them to a position of power? Over time,
> this trust will develop, but at this juncture, it is unrealistic to ask
> any constituency to place its trust in one person.
> Third is diversity. We are trying to represent diverse interests from
> disparate parts of the world. More NC reps will not guarantee that a
> diverse group is elected, but it should help.
> * * * * *
> The trade off is that too many NC reps will create a body that is so
> large that it cannot effectively perform its functions (whatever we
> conceive those functions to be). A smaller group would likely act faster
> and reach consensus quicker. (But I'm not sure that's a good thing at
> this stage.)
> Weighing the various factors, I would support a larger NC.
> Bret Fausett
> Bret A. Fausett
> Fausett, Gaeta & Lund, LLP
> e-mail: email@example.com
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208