[announce] Public Forum on GNSO Improvements

["GNSO.SECRETARIAT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

[To: ga[at]gnso.icann.org; announce[at]gnso.icann.org]

FYI


Dear Council and constituency members,

Your participation in the 'Public Forum on GNSO Improvements' scheduled
for Monday, 26 March, 16:00 - 18:00, in Lisbon is strongly encouraged.
<http://icann.org/meetings/lisbon/agenda-public2-26mar07.htm>

The Board Governance Committee (BGC) is hosting this forum to encourage
additional public input and discussion on the LSE review and
improvements to the GNSO's structures and processes. While input on all
elements of the GNSO and the LSE review report are open for comment at
the forum, the Committee is particularly interested in hearing your
views on the GNSO review recommendations listed below. (Note that
questions raised about the recommendations listed below are included to
prompt thought and discussion, and are not intended to represent the
views of the BGC or its members).

*Individuals and stakeholder groups are encouraged to submit views on
these and other recommendations in advance of the forum to
<gnso-improvements@xxxxxxxxx>. Authors of emailed input will be given an
opportunity to present their views prior to opening the forum to
comments from the floor.*

o  Structural Changes to GNSO Constituencies -- LSE recommendation 19.
Simplify the GNSO constituency structure in order to respond to rapid
changes in the Internet, including by substituting 3 larger constituency
groups representing Registration interests, Business, and Civil Society;
LSE recommendation 18. Create a category of 'Associate Stakeholder' to
establish a pool of available external expertise.

- Which entities and individuals should participate in the GNSO process,
and what will motivate them to want to join? The six current groups are
the natural point to begin discussion. Do they represent the right
groups? Are they over or under inclusive? The Bylaws acknowledge that
the optimal groupings may be different than the ones that now exist, and
that there is no "magic number." The LSE points out several problems
with the current structure and suggests the substitution of three larger
constituencies — is this the right answer?

- Is it feasible to create a roster of readily available experts who can
assist with task forces and other aspects of the PDP?

- What other questions and approaches should the BGC explore regarding
these two LSE recommendations?

o  Changes to the Policy Development Process -- LSE recommendation 17.
Make greater use of task forces [in policy development processes]; LSE
recommendation 23. Revise and move PDP operational provisions from
Bylaws to more flexible GNSO 'Rules of Procedures.'

- Could greater use of task forces, particularly proposals to attract
more expertise and geographical diversity, help the policy development
process? Would limiting the number of Councilors on any task force
enable the Council to focus more on the task of managing PDPs, rather
than the substantive aspects of formulating specific policies? Would
this change increase the number of people willing to serve on the Council?

- There seems to be widespread agreement that the Bylaws are overly
prescriptive, and the prescribed PDP steps and timelines have not
captured the requirements of a policy development process. Should the
PDP principles be preserved in the Bylaws while placing more procedural
elements in GNSO 'rules of procedure'? Do you have specific suggestions
for how the PDP should be revised?

- What other questions and approaches should the BGC explore regarding
these two LSE recommendations?

o  Changes to Voting and Representation -- LSE recommendation 21.
Increase the threshold for establishing consensus to 75% and abolish
weighted voting; LSE recommendation 20. Make the Council smaller (16
members suggested).

- How would raising the consensus threshold and abolishing weighted
voting advance the role of the GNSO? The Bylaws task the GNSO with both
"developing and recommending" gTLD policies to the Board.

- Weighted voting, in particular, was instituted as part of ICANN's
Evolution and Reform Process to address the different effect policies
have on contracted versus non-contracted constituencies. Has this
approach contributed to, or hampered, effective policy development?

- What other questions and approaches should the BGC explore regarding
these two LSE recommendations?


(Please share this announcement with your constituency members and other
interested parties.)

Regards,

Denise Michel
Vice President, Policy Development
ICANN
denise.michel@xxxxxxxxx


--
Glen de Saint Géry
GNSO Secretariat - ICANN
gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org
http://gnso.icann.org