Re: [council] Conclusions to call no on ICANN Evolution
I have just reviewed the "Conclusions to call on ICANN Evolution" below. Perhaps I missed something on our call; however, I do not remember any consensus. In fact, I specifically remember that you suggested that the constituencies provide a written idea of ICANN's mission for consideration by the NC members. I certainly never agreed to the formulation of ICANN's mission that you have presented in your summary. I do remember discussing the "What ICANN does" paper. I also remember you pointing out that I seemed to be happy with ICANN's current functions as laid out in that paper. I did not and do not now disagree with that summarization of my opinion. On the other hand, I find it problematic that you have formulated what appears to be a mission statement when I do not remember any agreement on this issue. Secondly, I do not remember the NC ever agreeing on either concept that you have labeled "Recommendations" in your report. I do remember some discussion on these issues, but I believe that it is an overstatement to say they are NC recommendations.
I have no problem with you attempting to move the discussions along. I do, however, find it disturbing that your characterizations are far more conclusive than I remember our discussions being. In fact, I reported to the IPC that we ( the IPC) needed to put together a written proposal on our view of ICANN's mission for submission to the NC. Accordingly, many members of our constituency have worked long hours to put together the necessary document. I now look a bit foolish when the NC Chair subsequently posts a document purporting to set forth conclusions from the NC call which, frankly, I think overstate the position and do not accurately reflect the discussion on the NC call.
I therefore request that the agenda for tomorrow's call be amended to include a discussion of your report and then we can vote on whether it is the NC's position.
J. Scott Evans