Re: [council] RE: GNSO Review

["Marilyn Cade" <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks, Liz. I am interested to discuss what and whether other models apply and 
how they can be extended to ICANN. :we are all familiar with how hard it is to 
force fit something unique into a Kstandard". 

Could you perhaps share your ideas on that front? Among the SoO are ind. From 
so many different "groups" including CENTR, APTLD, ITU, APEC, ISIOC, IETF, W3C, 
and national societies. It would be useful to discuss how models are understood 
as regards ICANN. Marilyn
-----Original Message-----
From: "Liz Williams" <liz.williams@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2005 09:22:31 
To:"'Grant FORSYTH'" <Grant.Forsyth@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc:"'GNSO.SECRETARIAT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx'" <gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,       
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [council] RE: GNSO Review

Thanks Grant.
 
 
 
Yes, I have approached all councilors and the two liaisons.  I am always happy 
if people wish to send their responses through the council list.  Am also happy 
to receive direct responses  as much to minimize my inbox as anything else!
 
 
 
Yes, good suggestion on the purpose of collecting data.  I will add that to the 
equations which are emerging.
 
 
 
Yes, there are four initial sections but do feel free to add where you need to. 
 This is a very early phase effort to help us all flush out where we need to be.
 
 
 
Yes, on the purpose statement  I have called it a rationale and I have added 
correct references where needed.   I will also include, if it helps Council, 
some other models where this type of review has been done in other industry 
self-regulatory environments.  You may have some specific suggestions here with 
respect to your experience in the telecoms industry in NZ  I cant remember what 
review was most recently done but perhaps you could advise?
 
 
 
Kind regards.
 
 
 
Liz
 
 
 
 
 
From: Grant FORSYTH [mailto:Grant.Forsyth@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
 Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2005 11:28 PM
 To: Liz Williams
 Cc: GNSO.SECRETARIAT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
 Subject: RE: GNSO Review
 
 
 
 
Hi Liz
 
 
Thank you for contacting me for some early input to the development of the TOR.
 
 
While you have noted that you would not forward my responses and would 
'anonymise' (is there such a word?) my thoughts, I am more comfortable 
responding transparently through Council and would wish that other Councillors 
(and I understand that you have approached [all?] other Councillors, which I 
think is correct) respond transparently. Transparency is important to the GNSO.
 
 
 
 
 
I have one significant suggestion at this time and that is for another 
'section' or 'dimension' to add to the four that you have proposed.
 
 
I think it is crucial that in gathering data, asking questions, analysing and 
making recommendations, that this is done in a clear and agreed understanding 
of the purpose of the GNSO given ICANN's mission, core values (eg bottom up, 
consensus based policy development) and commitments (eg MOU).
 
 
 
 
 
I think it would be desirable to have such a fulsome purpose 
statement/description agreed by Council, going into the review.
 
 
If you could draft such a statement supported by references, that would be most 
useful.
 
 
 
 
 
In the mean time, I will give further thought to the other dimensions that you 
have proposed be the framework for data gathering.
 
 
(Have I got it right as to what your 4 sections are?)
 
 
Regards
 
 
 
 
 
 
Grant Forsyth 
 Manager Industry & Regulatory Affairs 
 TelstraClear 
 Cnr Taharoto & Northcote Roads 
 Private Bag 92143 
 AUCKLAND 
 ph +64 9 912 5759 
 fx + 64 9 912 4077 
 Mb 029 912 5759 
 
-----Original Message-----
 From: Liz Williams [mailto:liz.williams@xxxxxxxxx]
 Sent: Tuesday, 02 August, 2005 00:44
 To: Grant FORSYTH
 Subject: GNSO Review
 
Grant
 
 
 
You will have seen Bruce's note about the GNSO review -- I am going to be 
responsible for putting that together from the ICANN side. I am collecting some 
initial thoughts and would appreciate your input.  
 
 
 
Just to recap the timing first.  We have to have ready for the VCR Board 
meeting the Terms of Reference that will then trigger the review to take place 
in early 2006.  The exact timing is yet to be established but, based on 
instructions from JJ, I will need to have the report ready one month prior to 
Nov 30 to enable sufficient time to get the Board their proper papers.  That 
means we have August, Sept and Oct to get initial thoughts, first draft and 
final draft ready.  I will prepare a project map in the next couple of days 
that will include all these critical dates.  I will circulate that when we have 
the early thoughts phase completed.
 
 
 
As you know, the review is required by the by-laws and the LUX board resolution 
which means that we can use input from all kinds of sources to inform the 
questions which need answering.
 
 
 
I have put below the four sections into which I'm organizing early thoughts.  
Your input into any or all of those sections gratefully received.
 
 
  Operational      - most objective of the categories.  Based on facts and 
figures about      voting patterns, trends, participation rates, numbers, types 
and kinds of      meetings.   (Glen is helping me here and we have just 
completed      our conversation)  Effectiveness      --  partly 
objective/partly subjective.  Need to look at time      lines for consideration 
of issues.  Need to also consider, once      policy is made, is it implemented 
easily, quickly.  What compliance      issues are there?  What is balance 
between policy compliance and, for      example, need for binding contract.  
Relationships      - partly objective/partly subjective.  Need to examine 
relationships      with the board, with staff, with other SOs.  Need to look at 
internal      relationships within the structure of the GNSO (are the 
constituencies      representative, transparent, effective at demonstrating     
 positions/views/diversity of opinion).  How does work get done; are      the 
existi!
 ng processes and procedures working and effective.  What      measures should 
we use to answer those questions?   Need work      here on identifying 
breakages in the system.  For example, should      there be closer/more 
supportive/more direct staff intervention?      Should there be broader 
constituency membership to spread consultation      mechanisms?  Perceptual - 
the most      subjective of the four categories.  Need questions around 
perceptions      of inclusiveness, transparency, attitudes of external bodies \ 
and      internal groupings like board, staff and other SOs.   Measuring      
this (and then improving) is difficult but quite valuable. 
 
 
I am particularly interested, from your side, to hear about representation, 
plurality of views, openness of processes.  I have been reviewing each of the 
GNSO constituencies to see how that is handled - each one is, of course, 
different!
 
 
 
At this early stage I am sharing these thoughts with Council members some of 
whom I've been able to catch by phone.  I will then bring those responses 
together into a first draft.  I am also using this model to seek views from the 
staff and others. 
 
 
 
I will not forward your responses and you can expect to see anonymised thoughts 
put into a more formal paper for public consumption a few weeks down the track. 
 You can call me if you would prefer - numbers below.
 
 
 
Kind regards.
 
 
 
Liz
 
 
 
Liz Williams
 
Senior Policy Counselor
 
ICANN - Brussels
 
Tel:  +32 2 234 7874
 
Fax:  +32 2 234 7848
 
Mob:  +61 414 26 9000
 
 
 
Regards,
Marilyn Cade