[Date Prev][Date Next][Date Index]
[ga] Cross-constituency meeting with ICANN Board
- To: DNSO General Assembly <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: [ga] Cross-constituency meeting with ICANN Board
- From: Alexander Svensson <email@example.com>
- Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 11:08:54 +0300
[Usual disclaimers: I'm not a professional scribe and may have
missed or misinterpreted statements. These are not verbatim
quotes. /// Alexander]
10-11h AM, Bucharest
Personal notes from the cross-constitueny meeting (BC/IPC/ISPCP)
with ICANN directors Hans Kraaijenbrink, Nii Quaynor,
Alejandro Pisanty, Lyman Chapin, Andy Müller-Maguhn,
Stuart Lynn, Amadeu Abril i Abril, Sang-Hyon Kyong,
PISA: Introduction. Think we have found useful way of dialog.
As public as possible. Will never have perfect ICANN,
continuous evolution. Feel that we converged within
E+R Committee, also in community. We have reached a
number of basic agreements. Out of this week, we really
have to come out with a framework. We won't see a lot
of changes around these basic principles. We have to
see which are the sticking points; should work on
changes preferably this week; send everybody home with
specific tasks. Understanding and acceptance of
concept necessary, especially NomCom concept and
Supporting Organizations. Parts have less (ASO), parts
have more work to do (ccTLDs).
LYNN: Nowhere in my original paper did I state that ICANN has
failed, in particular due to participation of community.
My concerns were towards the future. Put out deliberately
provocative proposal. Wanted to make sure it is taken
seriously. Response of community absolutely magnificient.
Appreciate E+RC work very much. As Bret Fausett said,
the community has been heard and listened to. Hope that
as we get through the week -- not everybody will be happy
about everything -- we can get forward with implementation
and solve some of the most significant problems identified.
Work of Committee and community has given us structured
[Q by Steve Metalitz, IPC]
Q: One area that is frustrating -- lack of progress in getting
ccTLDs in the ICANN system. How to go about this unfinished
LYNN: Very difficult. More than 200 TLDs. Time to take a fresh
look at those relationships. ccTLDs and governments should
get together; problems may in part be rather there than with
ICANN. Slow, steady progress. We'll have more agreements in
place, but long, complicated task.
Q: Anything in reform that will help facilitate this?
LYNN: CNSO major step.
MMAG: Heard from ccTLDs that separation gTLD and ccTLD is good,
but also heard that differentiation, e.g. regarding
funding, may still not be enough.
KRAA: ccTLDs not one view. Look at contribution of Oscar Robles.
PISA: With regard to Latin American ccTLDs, new views have emerged.
Slowly, the view that ccTLDs only have local responsibilities
is being diluted. Have not talked to all ccTLDs. But changing
the parameters we can look at new CNSO. Team play important.
ABRI: ccTLDs do participate in ICANN as forum, not in ICANN as
contractual structure. I as ccTLD manager would not sign ICANN
contract without assurance about DoC MoU issues. Perhaps
need clearer statement on redelegations, name server changes
etc. Incentives count. Only telling "sign an agreement" is
not effective. General idea that ccTLD agreements are missing.
[Q by Philip Sheppard, NC Chair]
Q: Some of us are still to hear the intellectual case for a
Nominating Committee. Improve composition of Board? Think
that current Board is quite fine. Want to know why improvement
of Board is so important and about nominations to SO Councils.
CHAP: Want not another place for battles. Role geared to finding
suitable people. Hope that NomCom casts a broad net. Look
for people in all parts of the world and all parts of society.
Not another layer of structure that we already are familiar
with. Not to pursue individual agendas, not the traditional
list of insiders.
MMAG: Speaking as someone not happy with NomCom. Originally, Board
divided between infrastructure providers and users. A lot of
criticism because people are ignored; not all can afford to
COHE: Without getting into political agenda that some people have --
NomCom has to be looked at as a transitional period. Maybe
a way for one years, two years, six years. Some Board members
still think that elections are possible. Nothing cast in stone.
Nobody mentioned transition period: A time where some decisions
will have to be taken and have to be done; nobody knows what
QUAY: Very interested in representation of future users.
LYNN: Important question. Andy's point: Question to what extent the
public interest gets reflected in ICANN. As we think it through,
not many disagree that what ICANN does impacts public interest
as well as others. NomCom a way of casting a wide net. Important
not to think "I'm here from the ASO etc.".
PISA: NomCom role with respect to SOs: We are not arriving from tabula
rasa. We have DNSO reviews, questions still open about process,
not only structure. Idea of having NomCom add people to SOs is
an extension of NomCom concept: Look for people providing a
more global point of view beyond specific tensions. Not an
interventionist approach; want more of a principled than an
interested approach. Looking at facilitating movement in SOs.
Currently, approach of blocking consensus by asking for more time.
[Q by Grant Forsyth, BC]
Q: NomCom is not a nominating committee, it's an appointment
committee. Nominating Committee produces a slate. In Board
structure, more than half of Board members are going to be
appointed. That suggests a deep satisfaction with the Board
today and -- while current proposal seems to have settled
current constituencies -- still a dissatisfaction with that
process. Suggests that constituencies don't represent a
majority of interested groups. People will come from a
background and are not different than people elected. Have
to emphasize that people are delegates -- positive approach.
COHE: You don't improve just because you're dissatisfied. Lyman
expressed that being confined to chosing Board members from
what is today the "ICANN community" is the best approach.
A lot of people may be excellent Board members would not
now be able to reach the Board under the current structure.
Broader net means a much better chance for certain parts of
the community to reach the Board than under the current
MMAG: What shall be the outcome of process? In my view, balance.
If IP interests included, this has to be balanced by freedom
of speech and so on.
CHAP: Origin of NomCom is IETF/IESG in effect appointing. Shown
to work well. Not every time a new constituency comes along,
the Board process and the bylaws should be changed. Have a
process that is flexible.
KRAA: Create a Board that works as a team. If you're looking for
IP vs. Freedom of Speech -- that's policy development. Through
this way, we have a better way to control the diversity.
Important to have a team from different parts of the world,
of the community, that work towards the goal of the corporation.
ABRI: Agree with NomCom idea, but composition still falls to closely
to organized groups. Eight is not more than half of the Board;
have a twenty member Board, even if not all voting.
This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html