ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

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


Mikey, at the time of publication Mary and I actually went through the
document that was prepared by GovLabs and made some proposed edits /
additions (see attached). As the primer had already been distributed to the
panel, it was decided not to post a revised version at that stage. However,
if you are now considering posting these on the GNSO web-site, you may want
to consider including the proposed edits which aimed to provide some further
clarifications and details especially in relation to the GNSO PDP.

Best regards,

Marika

From:  Mike O'Connor <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date:  Thursday 6 March 2014 14:17
To:  Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc:  "bruce.tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <bruce.tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject:  Re: [council] Conversation Wrap-Up & Next Steps


i¹ve 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 
³Basics² 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 ³we², 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-i
> nnovation/primer-20nov13-en.pdf
> 
> b.     The ICANN Primer ­ Technical & Business Functions
> http://www.icann.org/en/about/planning/strategic-engagement/multistakeholder-i
> nnovation/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 i¹ve 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 ³staircase of
> engagement.²  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 ³functions² - they last
> forever and continuously improve their work.
> 
>  
> 
> - Working Groups and the PDP ? policy/issue focused ³projects² that have a
> beginning, middle and end.  in my view these working groups are the
> ³customers² of the SG/Constituencies and they look to the SG/Constituencies
> for effective participants in the PDPs we supervise.
> 
>  
> 
> the point i¹ve 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.  i¹m much more cautious about some of these ideas
> in the PDP context ? the notion of ³crowdsourced² 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, it¹s 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 <http://bit.ly/1k7FDNj>
> 2.     Use expert networking: http://bit.ly/1lof1c5 <http://bit.ly/1lof1c5>
> 3.     Get Broad-based input/crowdsource at each stage of decision-making:
> http://bit.ly/1czpNXn <http://bit.ly/1czpNXn>
> 4.     Use Open Data and open contracting: http://bit.ly/1jcv3Rt
> <http://bit.ly/1jcv3Rt>
> 5.     Experiment with Innovative Voting Techniques: http://bit.ly/1nwta2H
> <http://bit.ly/1nwta2H>
> 6.     Impose Rotating Term Limits: http://bit.ly/1nUmkEr
> <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 ³we are where we are² 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.)
>  


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



Attachment: ICANN Primer-MW MK markup.doc
Description: application/applefile

Attachment: ICANN Primer-MW MK markup.doc
Description: MS-Word document

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature



<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>