ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]


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

Re: [council] Draft reply Council on GNSO reform

  • To: Council GNSO <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [council] Draft reply Council on GNSO reform
  • From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 21:26:50 -0500
  • In-reply-to: <002301c82c47$56d3f250$e601a8c0@PSEVO>
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • References: <002301c82c47$56d3f250$e601a8c0@PSEVO>
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx


Hi,

Thanks for getting this out so quickly.

A possible addition: While I am not sure that we have consensus on the details of proxy voting, might we want to mention that we do want a consideration of proxy voting with details to be worked out during the transition period?

Other points:

3.1 While I agree in principle with this, I am not sure that the general notion of representation is necessarily the criteria I would emphasise. I would prefer to talk about the appropriateness of the process and perhaps mention the possibility that sometimes a small invited team which is representative of the relevant stockholders would be a better choice.

3.2 I tend to think that putting a lot of responsibility on the WG chair is a good thing. Though I also think, as I mentioned in my personal statement to the BGWG-WG, that the Council retains an important management responsibility for these working groups and that in all cases at least one council member should be assigned to act as a representative steward for the WG and should should share the burden with the WG chair(s) with respective responsibilities. I also think we need to design and document some standard guidelines for WGs that all WG chairs and participants can use and that we need to create a process for the council to provide an appeals function for disputes between WG participants and WG chairs. I believe that for rough consensus to work, it must be possible to appeal the consensus call made by a chair. In this case, I see this as a council responsibility.

Perhaps a reply like:

More thought is needed here, especially on the design of the WG process and on the responsibilities of the council, the chairs and the participants in a WG. Discussions on these issues should be part of the transition process.


4.1b: Again I agree with Supporting this but I do not think that representativeness is the issue here. If I understand the architecture they are proposing, the council is the locus for representation, while the WG is the locus for inclusion. WGs are more inclusive, while the council will remain representative of the stakeholders and their interests. I suggest removing the text on representativeness, but leaving the statement of support.


5.2 I think this is a critical point. I think it is important to emphasise that the council needs to be responsible for more then just process management but is responsible for policy management. While this may not be a legislative function, i am not sure it is that now, it is certainly critical that the council not lose its ability to make policy recommendations and that it not be restricted to just passing on the work of the working groups. At the very least the policy work of many WGs must be coordinated so as to not produce contradictory recommendations. I wonder if we can't add something that says:

We think it is important that the policy management role of the council not be abrogated or diminished.

thanks again,

a.




On 21 nov 2007, at 09.03, Philip Sheppard wrote:

As agreed on yesterday's Council call, I promised to draft a short paper as a "straw man" listing those recommendations on GNSO reform that may be supportable by Council as a whole. Given the deadline is submission by 30 November I thought I'd better get a move on.

Not surprisingly those listed are ones seeking:
- improvements in policy development and timeline flexibility,
- improvements in communications,
- improvements in outreach
- greater support for constituencies.

I have left out proposals on structural change suspecting we will have differing views.

On working groups, I am proposing a partial support, suspecting we mostly feel they will work for much policy work, but that tying our hands to have ONLY working groups for EVERY issue before us would be too inflexible.

I hope I have captured areas of potential agreement. Your first comments please by November 25 after which time I'll edit a proposed final version. Comments can be as simple as - "yes I/we support" or can be proposals to strike one of the proposed areas of agreement. In that case, a word of explanation would be good to share.



Philip <GNSO reply reform proposals 2007v1.doc>




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