RE: [council] Regarding working group membership

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

Bruce,

I think most of what you propose looks pretty good.  But I am not so
sure about requiring non-constituency members to be experts is the best
way to go.  I am generally not opposed to allowing observers who are not
affilitated with a constituency or an expert to participate in working
groups or task forces as you suggested in a later email message on this
subject.

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 Bruce Tonkin
> Sent: Monday, February 19, 2007 10:57 PM
> To: Council GNSO
> Subject: [council] Regarding working group membership
> 
> 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
> 
>