ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[council] GNSO /BOARD dinner Sunday 25 March 2007

  • To: "'Council GNSO'" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Denise Michel <denise.michel@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [council] GNSO /BOARD dinner Sunday 25 March 2007
  • From: "GNSO.SECRETARIAT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2007 12:04:20 +0200
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • User-agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20070221)

Dear Council Members,

The topic of discussion for the GNSO/ICANN Board dinner will be GNSO Improvements.

Dinner will be tonight, Sunday 25 March, at 19:15 will be in Jade 1 & 2 on level 1.
There will be a suggested seating plan with name cards.

Please appoint a rapporteur for each table and make a bullet point summary of the discussion so that these can be collected, combined and provided as input to the Board Governance Committee.

Included below are links to the Monday ICANN public Forum on GNSO Improvements.

The forum announcement includes specific topics for which the BGC is seeking input. * Structural Changes to GNSO Constituencies -- LSE recommendation 19. Simplify the GNSO constituency structure in order to respond to rapid changes in the Internet, including by substituting 3 larger constituency groups representing Registration interests, Business, and Civil Society; LSE recommendation 18. Create a category of 'Associate Stakeholder' to establish a pool of available external expertise. o Which entities and individuals should participate in the GNSO process, and what will motivate them to want to join? The six current groups are the natural point to begin discussion. Do they represent the right groups? Are they over or under inclusive? The Bylaws acknowledge that the optimal groupings may be different than the ones that now exist, and that there is no "magic number." The LSE points out several problems with the current structure and suggests the substitution of three larger constituencies — is this the right answer? o Is it feasible to create a roster of readily available experts who can assist with task forces and other aspects of the PDP? o What other questions and approaches should the BGC explore regarding these two LSE recommendations?

* Changes to the Policy Development Process -- LSE recommendation 17. Make greater use of task forces [in policy development processes]; LSE recommendation 23. Revise and move PDP operational provisions from Bylaws to more flexible GNSO 'Rules of Procedures.' o Could greater use of task forces, particularly proposals to attract more expertise and geographical diversity, help the policy development process? Would limiting the number of Councilors on any task force enable the Council to focus more on the task of managing PDPs, rather than the substantive aspects of formulating specific policies? Would this change increase the number of people willing to serve on the Council? o There seems to be widespread agreement that the Bylaws are overly prescriptive, and the prescribed PDP steps and timelines have not captured the requirements of a policy development process. Should the PDP principles be preserved in the Bylaws while placing more procedural elements in GNSO "rules of procedure'? Do you have specific suggestions for how the PDP should be revised? o What other questions and approaches should the BGC explore regarding these two LSE recommendations?

* Changes to Voting and Representation -- LSE recommendation 21. Increase the threshold for establishing consensus to 75% and abolish weighted voting; LSE recommendation 20. Make the Council smaller (16 members suggested).

o How would raising the consensus threshold and abolishing weighted voting advance the role of the GNSO? The Bylaws task the GNSO with both "developing and recommending" gTLD policies to the Board. o Weighted voting, in particular, was instituted as part of ICANN's Evolution and Reform Process to address the different effect policies have on contracted versus non-contracted constituencies. Has this approach contributed to, or hampered, effective policy development? o What other questions and approaches should the BGC explore regarding these two LSE recommendations?


* Independent review of the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) prepared by the London School of Economics (LSE)

    * Archive of public comments on the independent GNSO review

    * ICANN Board Governance Committee

    * Independent Reviews of ICANN Structures

Glen de Saint Géry
GNSO Secretariat - ICANN

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>