RE: [council] Additional agenda item for the Council call on 16 Nov - regarding IDN working group

[Mawaki Chango <ki_chango@xxxxxxxxx>]

Marilyn,

A few comments inline as follows.

--- Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> I am speaking as a individual BC rep. 

<snip>  
> 
> Discussion :
> 
> 
> Are we making this too complicated, and overlooking the purpose of
> the WG,
> or misunderstanding it, or trying to make it more than it is? 
> 
> 
> I think we have a working group already agreed, and an election
> underway. 

I'm assuming here that you're just talking about us agreeing to set
up a WG, not that the WG as actually formed has been agreed on.
 
> 
> I would support the Council discussing asking the working group and
> elected
> chair to undertake how to and whether to expand the working group,
> what
> would be the purpose, etc. and whether the working group can use
> methods to
> keep broader groups of interested and relevant individuals or
> entities
> informed, such as through transcribing working conf. calls, et,
> maintaining
> a public mailing list that members and others can post to, etc. 

You see Marilyn, it's not just about informing people one-way; it
might be that we need their insight, too, and even their expertise on
some issues we seem to disqualify in advance.
  
> 
> This is a working group launched by Council for a purpose and is
> therefore
> not actually the 'old' working group model, as I see it.
> 
> 
> I do not want Council to lose sight of its own responsibilities for
> further
> discussion of policies of relevance to IDNs and find the working
> group a
> diversion from Council's overall responsibilities.

You might be right here, but that precisely requests that we are
clear about the role and the scope of the WG - in other words, its
mandate, rules and procedures. Failing us to have been explicit on
those, everyone's understanding might carry specific assumptions that
are not necessarily shared by the others.

 It seems to me
> that we
> may be getting a little diverted into confusion about the role of
> the
> Working Group. And perhaps missing some points about the work at
> hand for
> the group. 
> 
<snip> 
>  
> 
> Changing the election in process: I cannot support changing the
> election
> process. And, further, I have not see a consensus emerging that
> there should
> be any change in the election cycle underway.  
> 
> The election was opened, and undoubtedly many have voted. I have
> voted.

I haven't, and probably won't in the present confusion. 
  
> 
> I am not aware that elections, once started, can be stopped, unless
> there is
> some kind of technical problem with the election, failure in the
> systems,

Elections can be stopped for problems other than technical, problems
that may be even more important for legitimacy purpose (than the
technical ones often would be.)
Regards,

Mawaki

> etc. so I'm not in support of changing the decision to have an
> election
> after having an announcement of an election; getting two candidates
> nominated and seconded, and then opening the election.
> 
>  
> 
> Once the Working Group has a chair, it can meet and it can take
> into account
> the input and guidance from Council and relevant other inputs on
> how it does
> its work, including but not limited to whether working methods are
> sufficient to ensure participation and feedback from other groups
> or other
> parties into its work, or whether expansion of membership is
> appropriate.
> The Working Group could be asked to report back to the Council in
> Sao Paolo
> on ideas about membership and participation. Given the diversity of
> the
> Working Group as present, I believe that a balanced and pragmatic,
> and
> responsible set of ideas can be quickly put forward by the Working
> Group. 
> 
>  
> 
> First and foremost, can we all keep in mind that this is only ONE
> effort,
> and does not replace the work of the Council, the need to discuss
> policy
> more at the Council level, and with the focus on understanding the
> working
> group in the larger context. 
> 
>  
> 
> I fear that it is easy to confuse the Working group as something
> magical. I
> think it has some hard work to do, but nothing magical. :-) 
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin
> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 9:02 PM
> To: Council GNSO
> Cc: rmohan@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [council] Additional agenda item for the Council call on
> 16 Nov -
> regarding IDN working group
> 
>  
> 
> Hello All,
> 
>  
> 
> I would like to add an additional agenda item regarding the GNSO
> IDN
> 
> working group.
> 
>  
> 
> As you know, I chaired the original working group on the assumption
> that
> 
> the working group had a very short life.
> 
>  
> 
> Based on the last Council meetings decision to re-instate the
> working
> 
> group with no specific time limit, I wanted to hand over the chair
> to
> 
> another person.  There have been two candidates that have been
> nominated
> 
> by committee members - Ram Mohan and Sophia Bekele.   I have thus
> 
> initiated an email election process based on the existing
> membership of
> 
> the working group to put a new chair in place.
> 
>  
> 
> There are however outstanding issues:
> 
> - clearly defining the charter of the working group
> 
> - clarifying the rules for membership
> 
>  
> 
> I have received some requests from people in the ICANN community
> that
> 
> are currently not members of a GNSO constituency, but are members
> of the
> 
> general assembly mailing list.   So far I have been recommending
> that
> 
> these people join one of the existing GNSO constituencies to meet
> the
> 
> requirement of a "GNSO volunteer"   I have since noticed that the
> 
> current definition of a working group in:
> 
> http://www.gnso.icann.org/council/names-proceduresv7.shtml opens up
> 
> membership to "members of the General Assembly (GA) defined as
> 
> subscribers to the ga@xxxxxxxx, announce@xxxxxxxx or the GA voting
> 
> register".     I am not sure if this is the Council's intent.
> 
>  
> 
> The working group is attracting plenty of interest, but my concern
> is
> 
> that without a clear charter that we are setting false expectations
> 
> regarding the purpose of this working group.   We also need to
> clearly
> 
> establish the working group in the context of the President's
> Advisory
> 
> Committee, the ccNSO working group, and the new gTLD committee.
> 
>  
> 
> It has also been noted that perhaps we should hold off on electing
> a
> 
> chair until the above is clearer, and we have done a public call
> for
> 
> members etc.   
> 
>  
> 
> One alternative is that we continue with the current election and
> with
> 
> the current group of members, and that the elected chair work with
> the
> 
> group to finalise a charter and submit that to the GNSO Council for
> 
> approval.   I don't personally have the time to do that, hence my
> 
> interest in handing over responsibility to someone else.   We could
> 
> limit the "initial" term of the chair to three months, and then if
> the
> 
> working group is still operational, we could hold a follow up
> election.
> 
> Alternatively if the two candidates are willing, we could simply
> suggest
> 
> they be appointed as joint chairs for the purpose of moving the
> work
> 
> forward.
> 
>  
> 
> I am interested in ideas on further thoughts via the mailing list,
> and
> 
> discussion on the way forward at the next Council meeting on 16
> Nov.
> 
>  
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Bruce Tonkin
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>