<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[ispcp] LSE Report - comments (resend)
- To: ispcp@xxxxxxxxx
- Subject: [ispcp] LSE Report - comments (resend)
- From: Greg Ruth <greg_ruth@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 07:45:22 -0700 (PDT)
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=GMsFEGjSGar28XuMDLNIkxd6DBC05uPJkwSQuC+R8Z4ZGGIBUwT3GkBbAbzUxTQZc+IALMYG05qTDyoBGNqLMtLkaiVirIi7hqIa0E9h26DiRPphYP0yLm94JWUnlPJmTxL7rLRDLIc8F4t79PTHjKbB8+xg1cBY1fwzN2GFUB0= ;
- Sender: owner-ispcp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
All,
Well, what do you think about the LSE Review of the GNSO?
Herewith, some random observations of my own.
I think their heart is basically in the right place, realizing
that the GNSO does not work too well today and improvements could be
undertaken to improve its efficiency. Getting rid of weighted voting,
streamlined procedures, more diverse participation, moving procedural
details from the ICANN bylaws to the GNSO Rules, etc all seem like
steps in the right direction.
I like the idea of ICANN paying GNSO councilors' expenses because I
think cost can be a barrier to entry. Fewer teleconferences and more
face to face council meetings *sounds* like a good idea, but it could
be a bit rough on travel. Perhaps in such a world, the number of
full-blown ICANN meetings could be reduced, say from 3 to 2 per year,
while the council meetings would be more numerous but shorter (say, 5
meetings of 3 days each).
But I think the LSE recommendations are often somewhat simplistic
and some are, well, downright stupid (I'm especially astonished at the
reasoning that because ISPs, BC and IP often agree, there's no point in
having 3 separate constituencies), betraying a fundamental lack of
understanding of ICANN. LSE clearly don't understand that ISPs are not
just another business user. Oddly, they recommend a streamlined
council (with 16 members, with 3 constituencies and 3 nomcom
appointees) in which there is *less* stakeholder representation and
registries/registrars still have veto power over consensus policy.
They also don't get that nomcom appointees are basically each a
"constituency of one" representing no one by themselves. Nomcom
delenda est!!
There has been some discussion of term limits on the council list
- most don't see the need and some have even opined that one needs to
be a councilor for several years before one can really have an impact.
Comments? Brickbats?
Greg
PS: I am amused that they blithely suggest the GNSO council elect board
members and Council chair by the same process that is used to elect the
Lord Mayor of London :-)
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|