[council] RE: GNSO Review

[Grant FORSYTH <Grant.Forsyth@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Liz
Thank you for contacting me for some early input to the development of the
TOR.
While you have noted that you would not forward my responses and would
'anonymise' (is there such a word?) my thoughts, I am more comfortable
responding transparently through Council and would wish that other
Councillors (and I understand that you have approached [all?] other
Councillors, which I think is correct) respond transparently. Transparency
is important to the GNSO.
 
I have one significant suggestion at this time and that is for another
'section' or 'dimension' to add to the four that you have proposed.
I think it is crucial that in gathering data, asking questions, analysing
and making recommendations, that this is done in a clear and agreed
understanding of the purpose of the GNSO given ICANN's mission, core values
(eg bottom up, consensus based policy development) and commitments (eg MOU).
 
I think it would be desirable to have such a fulsome purpose
statement/description agreed by Council, going into the review.
If you could draft such a statement supported by references, that would be
most useful.
 
In the mean time, I will give further thought to the other dimensions that
you have proposed be the framework for data gathering.
(Have I got it right as to what your 4 sections are?)
Regards
 


Grant Forsyth 
Manager Industry & Regulatory Affairs 
TelstraClear 
Cnr Taharoto & Northcote Roads 
Private Bag 92143 
AUCKLAND 
ph +64 9 912 5759 
fx + 64 9 912 4077 
Mb 029 912 5759 

-----Original Message-----
From: Liz Williams [mailto:liz.williams@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, 02 August, 2005 00:44
To: Grant FORSYTH
Subject: GNSO Review



Grant

 

You will have seen Bruce's note about the GNSO review -- I am going to be
responsible for putting that together from the ICANN side.  I am collecting
some initial thoughts and would appreciate your input.  

 

Just to recap the timing first.  We have to have ready for the VCR Board
meeting the Terms of Reference that will then trigger the review to take
place in early 2006.  The exact timing is yet to be established but, based
on instructions from JJ, I will need to have the report ready one month
prior to Nov 30 to enable sufficient time to get the Board their proper
papers.  That means we have August, Sept and Oct to get initial thoughts,
first draft and final draft ready.  I will prepare a project map in the next
couple of days that will include all these critical dates.  I will circulate
that when we have the early thoughts phase completed.

 

As you know, the review is required by the by-laws and the LUX board
resolution which means that we can use input from all kinds of sources to
inform the questions which need answering.

 

I have put below the four sections into which I'm organizing early thoughts.
Your input into any or all of those sections gratefully received.

 

1.      Operational - most objective of the categories.  Based on facts and
figures about voting patterns, trends, participation rates, numbers, types
and kinds of meetings.   (Glen is helping me here and we have just completed
our conversation) 

2.      Effectiveness --  partly objective/partly subjective.  Need to look
at time lines for consideration of issues.  Need to also consider, once
policy is made, is it implemented easily, quickly.  What compliance issues
are there?  What is balance between policy compliance and, for example, need
for binding contract. 

3.      Relationships - partly objective/partly subjective.  Need to examine
relationships with the board, with staff, with other SOs.  Need to look at
internal relationships within the structure of the GNSO (are the
constituencies representative, transparent, effective at demonstrating
positions/views/diversity of opinion).  How does work get done; are the
existing processes and procedures working and effective.  What measures
should we use to answer those questions?   Need work here on identifying
breakages in the system.  For example, should there be closer/more
supportive/more direct staff intervention?  Should there be broader
constituency membership to spread consultation mechanisms? 

4.      Perceptual - the most subjective of the four categories.  Need
questions around perceptions of inclusiveness, transparency, attitudes of
external bodies \ and internal groupings like board, staff and other SOs.
Measuring this (and then improving) is difficult but quite valuable. 

 

I am particularly interested, from your side, to hear about representation,
plurality of views, openness of processes.  I have been reviewing each of
the GNSO constituencies to see how that is handled - each one is, of course,
different!

 

At this early stage I am sharing these thoughts with Council members some of
whom I've been able to catch by phone.  I will then bring those responses
together into a first draft.  I am also using this model to seek views from
the staff and others. 

 

I will not forward your responses and you can expect to see anonymised
thoughts put into a more formal paper for public consumption a few weeks
down the track.  You can call me if you would prefer - numbers below.

 

Kind regards.

 

Liz

 

Liz Williams

Senior Policy Counselor

ICANN - Brussels

Tel:  +32 2 234 7874

Fax:  +32 2 234 7848

Mob:  +61 414 26 9000