Re: [council] GNSO Review: Phase One Paper

[Ken Stubbs <kstubbs@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Fellow council members...

On a parallel track, I  share similiar concerns about adequate time 
necessary to adequately consider another item recently placed on the 
agenda.  Our Consitiuency has had very limited time to consider the 
proposed by-law changes which are being placed before the council for 
our recommendation to the Board.  we have not yet even had the 
opportunity to deliberate & discusss these changes proposed nor have we 
had the benefit of any legal opinions with respect to both process as 
well as impact etc..
From a practical perspective, I believe we are all aware that the month 
of August  is historically the time when many are on holiday and, as 
such, not available to commit themselves to the  time necessary to have  
adequate dialogues  regarding items of this nature..
i would certainly hope (as well as recommend),  that the council 
consider providing the various constituencies an adequate time to 
discuss the proposed changes and provide *"informed"* direction to their 
council representatives prior to taking any action.
Ken Stubbs


Marilyn Cade wrote:

> I wish to raise a point of order regarding how we approach the agenda 
> item for the Terms of Reference for the GNSO Review and ask for the 
> following approach:
>  
>
> Under our agenda, posted 7 days before the Council meeting, as 
> required, we have a topic addressing the timeline for work on the ToR.
> That is what I propose that Council address: reviewing and reaching 
> agreement on a detailed working timeline.
>  
>
> Unfortunately, the staff submission which I will hereafter refer to as 
> "staff working paper", which contains the proposed timeline did not 
> meet the required 7 day period. That is regrettable. Having said that, 
> it seems reasonable to consider this a delayed contribution and to 
> work from the proposed time line, which is the topic  we have on our 
> Council agenda.
>  
>
> Thus, we should focus in first on Item F on the staff working 
> paper/delayed contribution, which provides a basic timeline. I have 
> concerns about some of the dates proposed and questions about the lack 
> of interaction between the Council and Board; I've made a proposal 
> about the latter in this email. While we can have further discussion 
> online, it is my hope to have the discussion interactively on the call 
> among the Councilors.
>  
>
> As to the substance of the staff working paper, having received it, it 
> is now important to have sufficient time to both discuss it, and to 
> carefully consider in an interactive discussion, the substance of Item 
> D. I am not comfortable that we can fully undertake that in Thursday's 
> call. We have other substantive issues already on the agenda that 
> require attention, and we may need to undertake a sub-group focus with 
> reporting back to the full Council, on completing further input and 
> work on the ToR.  And, I would expect we will need to work on this in 
> between this Council meeting and the September meeting. For instance, 
> I am not comfortable with "information papers" that the Council hasn't 
> seen being sent to the Board. Thus, we need to provide staff 
> sufficient access to the Council, or a subset of the Council, to 
> provide the needed ongoing input and comment.
>  
>
> And, to address Ken's often expressed concerns, input does not equal 
> micromanagement. J
>  
>
> My comments below are to provide further background to fellow 
> councilors regarding additional materials that we need in order to 
> fulfill our responsibilities in the development of the ToR "with the 
> ICANN staff and Board" and to request that these materials/or a 
> response be provided for the Council meeting.
>  
>
> 1)       the development of the timing of the gNSO  'review' seems to 
> be based on a decision by the Board after discussions that have not 
> been shared with Council.  Regardless of the date the decision was 
> reached by Board, or the rationale, that information is useful and 
> even necessary background to Council. Thus, since the Board decided to 
> prioritize the review of the gNSO above one that is required by the 
> bylaws of a sister organization, there may be discussions, minutes, or 
> even staff recommendations or board member concerns that should be 
> shared with the Council itself, not just the staff.
>  
>
> 2)       Council should have access to information regarding 
> discussion,  presentations, or any materials shared with the Board 
> that led to the recommendation to focus on gNSO review as a priority. 
> Those should be provided on Thursday's meeting, or a time determined 
> when they will be available. This may be something very simple -- a 
> board discussion on DATE, staff comments provided which addressed a, 
> b. c... etc. If the discussions were informal, then a summary from 
> staff of the discussions should be sufficient.  Having an 
> understanding of the perceptions, concerns, and interests of the Board 
> in supporting this prioritization is important for Council in order to 
> ensure an effective ToR.  
>
>  
>
> 3) the resolution provides for "preparing with the ICANN staff and 
> Board "... thus, I recommend that we, */_as Council_/*, invite the 
> Board to appoint a few board members,  or to seek volunteer Board 
> members, to participate with us in the work of developing the ToR, of 
> course, and it goes without saying, */always/* supported by staff in 
> this process.  
>
>  
>
> Involvement in this should not be extraordinarily time consuming for 
> the Board members, and should result in improved understanding within 
> the Board of the views expressed by the Council and the perspectives 
> of the SO.
>  
>
> Further, I recommend that we plan accordingly, and reach agreement 
> now, with the Board, that Council will present the ToR, supported by 
> the staff, in a joint Board/Council discussion in VC.  
>
>  
>
> It seems obvious that we should be working somewhat interactively with 
> at least a subset of the Board, before VC, in order to avoid a 
> disconnect of perspectives and to work through any areas of concern. I 
> think we all are committed to increasing as appropriate how the 
> Council represents itself directly in interaction and interpretation 
> of the Council's input, while relying upon staff for support for 
> Council's work.
>  
>
> 4) I call fellow Councilors attention to other work that is related 
> that must be addressed as well:
>  
>
> As all will recall, the bylaws called for a review of the Council. 
> This was completed, with several outstanding recommendations, which we 
> need to prioritize as work items to discuss and schedule how to 
> address. Those items should be a priority.  They should be 
> specifically referenced in the working draft background document of 
> the staff.  
>
>  
>
> On Thursday, in the discussion of the timeline, we should discuss 
> whether to include/incorporate these items in the ToR, or merely note 
> that they are work in progress, and ensure that they are indeed work 
> in progress, what the tracking is of progress, and what steps remain 
> to be taken to address them. Again, I ask that staff's supporting 
> documents identify the work items, address where we are in those 
> areas, Council can then determine its proposed action to conclude this 
> work, either separately, or in conjunction with the ToR and review.
>  
>
> Should Council prefer to have parallel tracks of work, then this 
> should just be noted in the ToR, so that in the review undertaken, the 
> independent entity is guided by an awareness that there is work in 
> progress in areas that have impact upon the SO.
>  
>
>  
>
> One final comment. When we say "ICANN", we mean the collectiveness of 
> all the community. When we say ICANN staff, or ICANN Board, or ICANN 
> gNSO, then we are speaking of a subset. I notice in the staff working 
> paper that there is a reference in 3, to whether "ICANN is satisfied 
> with the advice". I confess I don't know who is meant in that 
> particular reference to "ICANN". If it is the ICANN Board, then we 
> should spell that out. If it is the "ICANN staff", then spell that 
> out; if it is the full community, then of course it is appropriate to 
> use "ICANN" here.
>  
>
> I suspect from personal interactions with some board members, that 
> this is actually a reference to questions from the Board, including 
> the Advisory Committee liaisons. That is quite important to 
> understand, in any case, and given how ICANN [the full community] is 
> maturing and evolving and how significant the work/policy items are 
> that it addresses, is quite to be expected that such a question would 
> arise. However, if the question is specific, as well, it is important 
> to understand that and to consider how to address it.
>  
>
> I will comment on the tone that we should seek to achieve in the ToR, 
> and in the review itself.  Having spent many years as a manager--and 
> an executive with reporting staff, and having been "managed" myself by 
> many seriously committed executives, first in government, and then in 
> private industry, I have a view that "reviews" are to be used as ways 
> to achieve improvement, not isolation of problems for the purposes of 
> criticism. When one does a performance review, the goals are to help 
> to improve performance, even of top performers in an organization. 
> Organizations often undertake self review, and engage in Strategic 
> Planning for that very purpose; they identify things that can be 
> improved, and they put the processes in place to improve.
>  
>
> We undertook such an extensive review of the entirety of ICANN not so 
> long ago in the Evolution and Reform process and we decided, as a 
> broad ICANN community to make several changes. We are now in the midst 
> of institutionalizing and improving the performance of ICANN, based on 
> the changes made at that time... and in this review, I would hope that 
> we are mindful of the very recent changes that the organization 
> undertook and focus in on continuing improvements, not revolutionary 
> change. I believe we have committed to, as a community, evolutionary 
> and ongoing change. The review of the gNSO should reflect that as a 
> core principle.  
>
>  
>
> Best regards,
>
> Marilyn Cade
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:* owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *Liz Williams
> *Sent:* Friday, August 12, 2005 5:48 AM
> *To:* council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> *Subject:* [council] GNSO Review: Phase One Paper
>
>  
>
> Dear Colleagues
>
>  
>
> I have attached a paper which reflects the first phase of consultation 
> and feedback about the GNSO Review Terms of Reference.  I am grateful 
> to everyone who has contributed ideas either by email or on the telephone.
>  
>
> The GNSO Review is at Item 2 on the agenda for the 18 August call.  
> The agenda item refers specifically to the timeline for the GNSO Terms 
> of Reference.  This paper provides the timeline and more detailed 
> information.
>  
>
> After the 18 August call, I will prepare an information paper for 
> distribution to the Board.  I will then incorporate their feedback 
> into a Second Phase paper.  You will note that we have quite tight 
> deadlines to meet the Board's requirements for notification of items 
> for the Vancouver meeting.  A full project plan is being developed for 
> the process which includes all key dates and milestones.
>  
>
> If you have any further questions or need clarification on anything my 
> numbers are below or you can email me.
>  
>
> Kind regards.
>
>  
>
> Liz
>
>  
>
> Dr Liz Williams
>
> Senior Policy Counselor
>
> ICANN - Brussels
>
> Tel:  +32 2 234 7874
>
> Fax:  +32 2 234 7848
>
> Mob:  +61 414 26 9000
>
>