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

["Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>]

i’ve just scanned these primers and…

they look really good.  i think we (GNSO and GNSO Council) should give these a 
careful review and, once they pass muster, give them wider distribution.  maybe 
on the 
“Basics” page of the GNSO website?

thanks for those links Jonathan.

m


On Mar 6, 2014, at 5:38 AM, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Agreed and thanks from me too.  Good points Mikey.
>  
> The issues Mikey raises and related points were some of the concerns I felt 
> with regard to the work of the MSI panel.
> Indeed, whilst my original mail below referred to the GNSO in parts, when I 
> have used “we”, I mean the Council.
>  
> A couple of other background remarks in that may help here:
>  
> 1.       The MSI Panel based used a couple of primers to inform and normalise 
> their understanding
> a.       The ICANN Primer 
> http://www.icann.org/en/about/planning/strategic-engagement/multistakeholder-innovation/primer-20nov13-en.pdf
> b.      The ICANN Primer – Technical & Business Functions
> http://www.icann.org/en/about/planning/strategic-engagement/multistakeholder-innovation/primer-tech-business-20nov13-en.pdf
> 2.       I gathered from my conversations with the Gov Lab people that they 
> had made particular efforts and felt that one or more staff had made good 
> steps forward in understanding the GNSO.
>  
> Thanks again,
>  
>  
> Jonathan
>  
> From: Bruce Tonkin [mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: 05 March 2014 22:11
> To: Mike O'Connor; jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [council] Conversation Wrap-Up & Next Steps
>  
> 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> 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, HANDLE: 
> OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
>  


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