<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[council] Report on Proposed GNSO Improvements
- To: GNSO Council <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, liaison6c <liaison6c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: [council] Report on Proposed GNSO Improvements
- From: Denise Michel <denise.michel@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 15:02:00 -0700
- List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Organization: ICANN
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- User-agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.13 (Windows/20070809)
The Board Governance Committee's GNSO Review Working Group has issued a
comprehensive proposal to improve the effectiveness of the GNSO,
including its policy activities, structure, operations and
communications. The GNSO Improvements Report, which has been issued for
public comment and discussion and is posted at
<http://icann.org/topics/gnso-improvements/gnso-improvements-report-15oct07.pdf>
and summarized below, reflects the Working Group’s examination of many
aspects of the GNSO’s functioning, including the use of working groups
and the overall policy development process (PDP), and the structure of
the GNSO Council and its constituencies.
The Report will be discussed at the 29 October "GNSO Improvements
Workshop" at ICANN's Los Angeles meeting (see
<http://losangeles2007.icann.org/node/44> for more information). The
Working Group is chaired by Roberto Gaetano and includes Raimundo Beca,
Vittorio Bertola, Susan Crawford, Tricia Drakes, Rita Rodin, and Vanda
Scartezini.
Comments on the Report are encouraged and can be posted to
<gnso-improvements@xxxxxxxxx> and reviewed at
<http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-improvements>.
Regards,
Denise
Denise Michel
Vice President, Policy Development
ICANN www.icann.org
denise.michel@xxxxxxxxx
SUMMARY OF THE REPORT OF THE BGC
GNSO REVIEW WORKING GROUP ON GNSO IMPROVEMENTS
***FOR DISCUSSION AND PUBLIC COMMENT ONLY***
The Board Governance Committee (BGC) created a working group, comprising
current and former Board members, to oversee improvements to the Generic
Supporting Names Organization (GNSO). The purpose of the “BGC GNSO
Review Working Group" (BGC WG) is to consider the reviews conducted by
the London School of Economics Public Policy Group and others to
determine whether, in general, the GNSO has a continuing purpose in the
ICANN structure and, if so, whether any change in structure or
operations is desirable to improve its effectiveness. The Board charged
the BGC WG with recommending a comprehensive proposal to improve the
effectiveness of the GNSO, including its policy activities, structure,
operations and communications.
This Report on GNSO Improvements (Report) summarizes our examination of
many aspects of the GNSO’s functioning, including the use of working
groups and the overall policy development process (PDP), and the
structure of the GNSO Council and its constituencies. We have been
guided by several key objectives, including (i) maximizing the ability
for all interested stakeholders to participate in the GNSO’s processes;
(ii) ensuring recommendations can be developed on gTLD “consensus
policies” for Board review, and that the subject matter of “consensus
policies” is clearly defined; (iii) ensuring policy development
processes are based on thoroughly-researched, well-scoped objectives,
and are run in a predictable manner that yields results that can be
implemented effectively; and (iv) improving communications and
administrative support for GNSO objectives. Above all, we have sought
ways to improve inclusiveness and representativeness in the GNSO’s work,
while increasing its effectiveness and efficiency. Our deliberations
have achieved consensus on a comprehensive set of recommendations that
addresses five main areas:
Adopting a Working Group Model: A formalizing working group model
should become the focal point for policy development and enhance the
process by making it more inclusive and representative, and – ultimately
– more effective and efficient. This approach can be a more
constructive way of establishing where agreement might lie than task
forces, where discussion can be futile because the prospect of voting
can polarize the group. It also enables key parties to become involved
in the beginning and work together to address complex or controversial
issues. Steps should be taken immediately to move to a working group
model for future policy development work, developing appropriate
operating principles, rules and procedures that can draw upon expertise
gained from policy development in the IETF, W3C, RIRs and other
organizations.
Revising the PDP: The PDP needs to be revised to make it more effective
and responsive to ICANN’s policy development needs, bringing it in-line
with the time and effort actually required to develop policy, and making
it consistent with ICANN’s existing contracts (including, but not
limited to, clarifying the appropriate scope of GNSO “consensus policy”
development). While the procedure for developing “consensus policies”
will need to continue to be established by the Bylaws as long as
required by ICANN’s contracts, Council and Staff should propose new PDP
rules for the Board’s consideration and approval that contain more
flexibility. The new rules should emphasize the importance of the work
that must be done before launch of a working group or other activity,
such as public discussion, fact-finding, and expert research in order to
define properly the scope, objective and schedule for a specific policy
development goal, as well as metrics for measuring success.
Restructuring the GNSO Council: The Council needs to be moved away from
being a legislative body heavily focused on voting towards becoming a
smaller, more focused strategic entity, composed of four broad
stakeholder groups, with strengthened management and oversight of the
policy development process and the elimination of weighted voting. We
recommend a 19-person Council consisting of 16 members elected from four
stakeholder groups, with two of these groups being “suppliers” and two
being “users,” as follows: registries, registrars, commercial
registrants and non-commercial registrants. In addition, 3 Councilors
would be appointed by the Nominating Committee (pending that review).
The precise names of the four stakeholder groups, exactly how the two
“demand” groups might be defined and other issues regarding this
configuration, are questions on which GNSO input will be particularly
important before the Board makes a decision. As the Council moves from
being a legislative body to a strategic manager overseeing policy
development, formal voting should be minimized.
Enhancing Constituencies: Constituency procedures and operations should
become more transparent, accountable and accessible. The Council should
develop participation rules and operating procedures for all
constituencies for Board approval. The criteria for participation in
any ICANN constituency should be objective, standardized and clearly
stated. In addition, Staff should work with constituencies to develop
global outreach programs aimed at increasing participation and interest
in the GNSO policy process, including information on the option to
self-form new constituencies.
Improving Coordination with ICANN Structures: There should be more
frequent contact and communication between the GNSO and members it
elects to the Board, and among the Chairs of the GNSO, other Supporting
Organizations (SOs) and Advisory Committees (ACs), especially before
each ICANN Meeting. The Council should also consider other ways to
improve further GNSO cooperation and coordination with other ICANN
structures.
The Report describes our recommendations and rationale in detail. We
believe there is broad and strong support for changes in the functioning
of the GNSO, based on input from GNSO participants and other members of
the ICANN community. While the need to update and improve the GNSO is
not disputed, there is no magical set of proposals that could be
received without controversy or opposition. We have therefore balanced,
as best we can, different – and sometimes competing – interests in order
to formulate recommendations on the basis of what we believe can benefit
the ICANN community as a whole.
The Report will be posted for public comment on the ICANN website and
discussed at a Public Forum during the ICANN Meeting in Los Angeles
before being presented to the Board. As the community and the Board
consider the proposals outlined in the Report, it is important to keep
in mind that this is an evolutionary process intended to reflect the
importance of the GNSO to ICANN and to build upon the GNSO’s successes
to date.
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|