[ncdnhc-discuss] Models for PPPs

[James Love]

Harold, in response to your post, I would ask Alejandro to please explain
why the board is focusing on a plan that would have governments directly
select board members, rather than a model where ICANN simply negotiated a
contract for services with governments?   I work with a lot of
public/private partnerships in the field of pharmaceuticals.  The IPPPH
(http://www.ippph.org) lists data on some 78 PPPs in the health area.
There are a million different models for governance.   The typical issue for
the PPP  is how to manage some mixed funding model to solve some under
funded public health problem.   Usually the government hopes the private
sector will come up  with the cash, while the private sector hopes the
government will come up with the cash.  Some are created by governments,
some are created by industry, and some by foundations or NGOs.  I was in NYC
during the ICANN meeting in Accra, for an MSF meeting to create a new PPP,
called the DNDi, a non-profit corporation to develop drugs for neglected
disesases.

It just seems to me that getting money from governments does not need to
entail having governments choose members of the board of directors.   Why
has the ICANN board not explored different relationships with governments,
such as having contracts for services?  You would seem to be opening up a
can of worms by having (some) governments put people directly on the ICANN
board.

  Jamie

----- Original Message -----
From: "Harold J. Feld" <hfeld at mediaaccess.org>
To: "NCDNHC List" <discuss at icann-ncc.org>
Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2002 4:05 PM
Subject: [ncdnhc-discuss] Discussions in the NC


> The NC will undertake consideration of the Board's resolutions in Accra
> on restructuring in accordance with the request of the Board. The NC
> Chair has proposed a structure for consideration within the NC, that I
> expect the NC will follow (attached).
>
> There has been a request from Marilyn Cade to include the GA President
> and Deputy in the NC discussions from the beginning to facilitate
> discussion with the GA, a recommendation I support.
>
> It behooves us as a constituency to consider our responses, and to
> advise those of us on NC as to the sense of the constituency. We may
> also consider what formal activities (e.g. resolutions) the consticuency
> may wish to undertake between now and the next Board meeting.
>
> Harold Feld
> __________________________________________________________________
> Proposed terms of reference for DNSO response to the paper "Case for
Reform"
>
> Final output
> A report listing:
> § Common points of agreement
> § Individual Constituency opinion (where it differs).
> § Consensus input from GA
> Deadline May 14.
>
> Frame work
> § Functions of ICANN, guiding principles of those functions.
> § Structure the report by subject area (see below)
> § Response to Lynn analysis and proposed solution
> § Alternative solutions
>
>
> Subject areas
> 1. Funding
> - proposal for some government funding
> - proposal to continue with present funding model
>
> 2. Advisory bodies
> - change from a binding consensus process to advisory stakeholder
> consultation
> - change of 3 Supporting Organisations to 3 Policy Councils
> - merger of ASO/PSO
> - separation of ccTLD and gTLD bodies
> - proposed advisory committees (technical, government)
> - proposed standing committees (security, root server operation)
>
> 3. Composition of managing body of the advisory bodies
> - change of 21 member Names Council to 6+5 Steering Committee of new
> gTLD Policy Council
> - change for other SOs
> - role of nomination committee
>
> 4. Stakeholder participation
> - change of elected reps on NC from constituencies, to Forums with
> appointed representation
> - idea of additional self-appointed discussion Forums
>
> 5. Board composition
> - increase/change in ability of new Board to make policy
> - inclusion of chairs of advisory bodies
> - inclusion of government nominees as surrogate for at-large
> - change of size of board/trustees
> - role of nominating committee.
>
> 6. Transparency
> - ombudsman
> - public participation manager
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at icann-ncc.org
> http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>