RE: [council] Regarding working group membership

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

Whereas I agree with Mawaki that monitoring and enforcement of Bylaws
requirements regarding membership criteria probably should be done, I
have reservations about the Council doing that.  I think that could
distract from our need to have good working relationships.  I think that
that would be a better roll for ICANN staff because it is their
responsibility to make sure the Bylaws are followed.  Maybe a compliance
function needs to be set up in this regard; it could probably be a part
time responsibility fulfilled by staff supporting other compliance
programs.

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 Mawaki Chango
> Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 7:50 AM
> To: Council GNSO
> Subject: Re: [council] Regarding working group membership
> 
> Hello Bruce & Council,
> 
> The following step may be a useful one to have in addition to 
> 
> > (2) If a participant is ineligible to join a constituency, 
> then direct 
> > the participant to a process to determine if they are 
> suitable as an 
> > "expert".
> 
> However, it may be desirable, useful and healthy to have the 
> GNSO Council involved one way or the other in the 
> Constituency membership formation. This is to avoid that a 
> constituency becomes a like-minded clique that would tend to 
> refuse membership to parties on the ground of fantasist 
> reasons, or even worse, with the intent to exclude 
> differences from their worldview and particular interests. 
> This leads to a de facto privatization of the principe and 
> function of the Constituency, instead of it being the Home 
> for the whole global community of interest and practice 
> (relevant to each constituency
> identity) from where they could meaningfully participate in 
> the ICANN policy processes.
> 
> The involvement of the Council needs not to be at the whole 
> level of its own membership, or to supersede the Constituency 
> role of evaluating membership applications. It may be done at 
> the level of a Council's sub-Committee, for example, that 
> will check if the objective membership criteria in a 
> constituency's bylaws are met or not by the applicants, 
> examine further the disputed decisions on the motivated 
> request of the applicant, and provide final recommendations. 
> If deemed necessary, the process could go as far as calling 
> for public comments including some sort of reputation check 
> from the community, etc. After all this doesn't need to be 
> kept secret, and it might even be a good outreach policy for 
> the GNSO and its constituencies.
> 
> Those are just initial ideas. The Council may of course 
> change/adapt the implementation details after discussion.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Mawaki
>  
> 
> --- Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > Hello All,
> > 
> > Following the GNSO Public Forum in Sao Paulo 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.
> > 
> > The ICANN bylaws do provide the ability for a group of interested 
> > stakeholders to form a new constituency:
> > 
> > "4. Any group of individuals or entities may petition the Board for 
> > recognition as a new or separate Constituency. Any such 
> petition shall 
> > contain a detailed explanation of:
> > 
> > a. Why the addition of such a Constituency will improve the 
> ability of 
> > the GNSO to carry out its policy-development responsibilities; and
> > 
> > b. Why the proposed new Constituency would adequately 
> represent, on a 
> > global basis, the stakeholders it seeks to represent.
> > 
> > Any petition for the recognition of a new Constituency 
> shall be posted 
> > for public comment.
> > 
> > 5. The Board may create new Constituencies in response to such a 
> > petition, or on its own motion, if it determines that such action 
> > would serve the purposes of ICANN. In the event the Board is 
> > considering acting on its own motion it shall post a detailed 
> > explanation of why such action is necessary or desirable, set a 
> > reasonable time for public comment, and not make a final 
> decision on 
> > whether to create such new Constituency until after reviewing all 
> > comments received. Whenever the Board posts a petition or 
> > recommendation for a new Constituency for public comment, it shall 
> > notify the GNSO Council and shall consider any response to that 
> > notification prior to taking action."
> > 
> > I am not aware of a group that has chosen to try to form a new 
> > constituency.
> > 
> > To get the best policy outcomes however I feel with should be as 
> > inclusive as possible, whilst ensuring that members of 
> working groups 
> > are contributing in a positive way.
> > 
> > It seems to me that we need a process to handle requests for
> > participation:
> > 
> > (1) Determine if the participant would be eligible to join a GNSO 
> > constituency.  If they are eligible - require them first to 
> join and 
> > then allow participation.
> > 
> > (2) If a participant is ineligible to join a constituency, 
> then direct 
> > the participant to a process to determine if they are 
> suitable as an 
> > "expert".  The applicant would need to provide a detailed 
> statement of
> > (i) qualifications and relevant experience; and (ii) potential 
> > conflicts
> > of interest.   The ICANN staff would need to verify the statement
> > of
> > qualifications and experience, and perhaps we have a 
> process where the
> > experts are appointed by majority vote of the GNSO Council.   The
> > experts would be non-voting members of the working group.
> > 
> > I would be interested in hearing from other Council members on an 
> > appropriate process that could apply to all working groups.
> > 
> > Regards,
> > Bruce Tonkin
> > 
> > 
> 
>