RE: [council] Conversation Wrap-Up & Next Steps

[Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hello Mike,

The distinction below I think is very helpful.

Regards,
Bruce Tonkin


From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Mike O'Connor
Sent: Thursday, 6 March 2014 8:01 AM
To: jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [council] Conversation Wrap-Up & Next Steps

hi Jonathan,

thanks for this extensive update and your leadership on this topic.

the key distinction i've been trying to make, in many fora, is the two really 
different kinds of work that happen within the GNSO.  they are:

- SG/Constituency - stakeholder-focused homes for participants in the GNSO.  
these organizations are the focal point for outreach, the "staircase of 
engagement."  this is where new people are welcomed, acquire the skills and 
knowledge they need to effectively participate in and lead working groups and 
in turn help others join the process.  these are "functions" - they last 
forever and continuously improve their work.

- Working Groups and the PDP - policy/issue focused "projects" that have a 
beginning, middle and end.  in my view these working groups are the "customers" 
of the SG/Constituencies and they look to the SG/Constituencies for effective 
participants in the PDPs we supervise.

the point i've been trying to make to the MSI folks, and others, is that the 
needs of those two parts of the GNSO mission are *really different* and 
introducing changes without a clear understanding of that difference can lead 
to a tremendous tangle.  i am quite relaxed, in fact enthusiastic, about some 
of the recommendations when i stand with my Constituency-member hat on.  i 
think a lot of the things described in the report would be tremendously helpful 
to us in the ISPCP.  i'm much more cautious about some of these ideas in the 
PDP context - the notion of "crowdsourced" PDPs makes my blood run cold.

clearly these are only my ideas and they undoubtedly need refinement - but i 
think if we can continue to inform this effort with ideas like those, we stand 
a chance of getting a lot of good ideas from it.  i think that we the Council, 
as the stewards of the PDP, need to keep a close eye on improving the pool of 
*qualified* participants in working groups, and not accidentally causing more 
harm than good.

my two cents.  thanks again Jonathan, a really helpful post.

mikey


On Mar 5, 2014, at 5:11 AM, Jonathan Robinson 
<jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:


All,

In discussion with Beth Novek and colleagues from the Governance Lab last week, 
a suggestion emerged that we could potentially narrow down the list of MSI 
Panel proposals for more detailed discussion.

It is not yet 100% clear to me as to whether or not we will be able to meet 
with one or more of the team from the Gov Lab in Singapore but it seems likely 
and, in any event, it's useful to consider how we might respond to the output 
of the panel, in particular where it seems to link most closely with our own 
work.  We discussed condensing their work into a most relevant sub-set for 
further discussion

>From their perspective and having made themselves aware of the work of the 
>GNSO, the suggested sub-set (from them) for further condensation is as follows:
1.      Move from "Stakeholder" engagement to Global Engagement: 
http://bit.ly/1k7FDNj
2.      Use expert networking: http://bit.ly/1lof1c5
3.      Get Broad-based input/crowdsource at each stage of decision-making: 
http://bit.ly/1czpNXn
4.      Use Open Data and open contracting: http://bit.ly/1jcv3Rt
5.      Experiment with Innovative Voting Techniques: http://bit.ly/1nwta2H
6.      Impose Rotating Term Limits: http://bit.ly/1nUmkEr
I also talked with the Gov Lab people about considering the above proposals 
through a (non-exhaustive) list of criteria as follows:


A.    Is the proposal relevant to us?

B.     Is it currently applicable to our work?

C.     How could the proposal be modified/amended/advanced to be applicable or 
more applicable to our work?

D.    How might we pilot/test these proposals in order to determine whether and 
how the proposal could be a useful amendment or reform for ICANN?

None of this pre-supposes that this work was commissioned, initiated or 
executed in a way which we consider optimal.
It simply takes a "we are where we are" view of the work and recognises that we 
have the opportunity to potentially engage with the team that undertook the 
work.

In addition, we will still have the opportunity to provide formal public 
comment on this and engage through any other applicable forums at the ICANN 
meeting in Singapore.

Thoughts or input welcome.


Jonathan


PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: 
www.haven2.com<http://www.haven2.com>, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, 
Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)