Re: [council] GNSO review - the easy wins

[Ross Rader <ross@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 15-Feb-07, at 4:24 AM, Philip Sheppard wrote:

> I hope you agree this is a good idea to demonstrate Council's  
> enthusiasm for
> self-improvement.
I do not.

The LSE report was input for the Board. It is one of many inputs that  
need to be considered, including that of the GNSO itself, the larger  
community, etc. We do not yet know how the board will consider these  
inputs. I don't think its prudent to chase down anything without  
understanding what the board objectives and priorities are.
We already know that the Board Governance committee has formulated a  
plan to pursue this work, specifically; "...the Board Governance  
committee had on its agenda for final approval, a process for GNSO  
improvements that entailed creating a joint Board-GNSO working group  
to consider the recommendations raised in the Patrick Sharry Council  
Review, the LSE review and other input from the GNSO and the public  
to develop specific recommendations to be considered by the ICANN  
Board." (Denise Michel, Nov. 16 Council meeting, http:// 
gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-16nov06.shtml"
Why would we want to purposely work outside this process? We have too  
many "shiny objects" we're chasing as it is. Some restraint in terms  
of what we focus on and what we don't is in order. It is premature to  
undertake this work in a piecemeal manner. While you may be  
"reluctant to give the neophytes a scalpel", running off in our own  
direction with the full knowledge that the Board is about to  
implement a complete process to help us implement a set of  
recommendations that we broadly agree to (with the support of the  
larger community) sounds incredibly counter-productive.
If anything, now is the time to demonstrate our enthusiasm for  
working *with* the Board and community and not against it.
I also think its time to pack up any paranoia you may have about who  
gets the scalpel and what their level of experience is and focus on  
taking a much more positive view of the situation and environment.  
Your rhetoric is polarizing an divisive. It politicizes the process  
and will not lead to a productive or positive outcome.
Ross Rader
Director, Retail Services
t. 416.538.5492
c. 416.828.8783
http://www.domaindirect.com

"To solve the problems of today, we must focus on tomorrow."
- Erik Nupponen