RE: [council] Regarding working group membership

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

In my opinion, Ross makes some very important points that I further
comment on below.

Chuck Gomes
 
"This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to
which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged,
confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any
unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If
you have received this message in error, please notify sender
immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission." 
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ross Rader
> Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 9:25 AM
> To: Bruce Tonkin
> Cc: Council GNSO
> Subject: Re: [council] Regarding working group membership
> 
> 
> On 19-Feb-07, at 10:57 PM, Bruce Tonkin wrote:
> 
> > I have heard of instances
> > where interested parties that wish to join the IDN working 
> group have 
> > been unable to join a constituency in order to participate.
> 
> Bruce -
> 
> Thanks for the recap and proposal.
> 
> The framework you've outlined only goes part of the way 
> towards solving the problem. As long as the GNSO is populated 
> with constituencies that have very narrow membership criteria 
> we will continue to encounter parties that are unable to 
> participate in working groups. I do not believe that it is 
> the role of the Council to act as the general manager of the 
> constituencies, but the council has a strong interest in 
> ensuring the proper function of its working groups as we 
> strive to ensure the integrity of our policy development process.

It seems to me that it would be wise for us as a Council to explore the
issue of 'very narrow membership criteria' for constituencies.  I am not
sure it was ever intended or should have been intended for
constituencies to make membership criteria narrower than that defined in
the bylaws.

Regarding the 'proper function of its working groups' I personally
believe that that is more a function of clearly written statements of
work and work group leadership than it is rigid membership requirements.
The key in my mind to enlist working group members who are interested in
the subject and willing and able to devote sufficient time to the effort
to be a constructive member.  If the goal is to reach rough consensus
positions rather than reaching majority of super majority support,
voting should be less of an issue.  If rough consensus cannot be
reached, that is a legitimate outcome.

With regard to 'integrity of our policy development process', the most
important factor in my opinion is to make sure that as many varying
viewpoints as possible are represented.  It doesn't matter whether they
come from constituency members or others.  If people with different
points of view can collaboratively come up rough consensus positions,
then something good will have been accomplished.  If they cannot do
that, then maybe the issue should be left to market mechanisms.

> 
> In this situation, the interests of the constituencies 
> (preserve a very narrow membership criteria so as not to 
> dilute the lobbying position of the original stakeholder 
> groups) and the interests of the Council (ensure a diversity 
> of voices to underpin a broad consensus around key policies) 
> are at odds.

As I said above, I do not believe that constituency membership criteria
should be any narrower than defined in the Bylaws.  If a constituency
decides to make membership more restrictive, then it should be required
to submit a new charter for approval.

> 
> Until such time that the constituencies can provide the 
> diversity of input that our processes require, we should 
> seriously consider implementing a temporary framework that 
> would allow for greater participation in the working groups 
> and task forces without the high bar that qualifying as an 
> expert (or creating a new constituency) requires in 
> situations where a stakeholder has applied for membership in 
> a constituency, but does not qualify due to the narrow 
> qualification criteria employed by a constituency.

I don't understand why we would require someone to be an expert before
allowing participation in a working group if they are not a constituency
member.  If they can constructively contribute to the effort and bring
new points of view from the broader community, then they should be
welcome because that will add increased legitimacy to the process.  

> 
> Regards,
> 
> Ross Rader
> Director, Retail Services
> t. 416.538.5492
> c. 416.828.8783
> http://www.domaindirect.com
> 
> "To solve the problems of today, we must focus on tomorrow."
> - Erik Nupponen
> 
> 
> 
> 
>