Re: [council] Draft reply Council on GNSO reform

["Anthony Harris" <harris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I agree with Tim on this.

Tony Harris

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Avri Doria" <avri@xxxxxxx>
Cc: "Council GNSO" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2007 8:09 AM
Subject: RE: [council] Draft reply Council on GNSO reform


> Avri, I don't see representation and inclusiveness as separable.
>
> Regarding WGs I think that stakeholder representation should be an
> important measure of inclusiveness, and a critical measure of consensus.
> I would hate to see the WG process become a gaming mechanism ruled by
> shear numbers without regard to whether all stakeholder's views have
> been given equal time and treatment, or have consensus measured simply
> by numbers without regard to all stakeholder interests.
>
> I believe the challenge the Council has as it defines the WG guidelines
> is to not lose sight of the fact that there are very distinct interest
> groups affected in various ways, good or bad, by ICANN policy. All of
> these groups deserve to be included (represented) and the Council should
> not allow one group to be completely drowned out by the shear numbers of
> another.
>
>
> Tim 
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [council] Draft reply Council on GNSO reform
> From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
> Date: Wed, November 21, 2007 8:26 pm
> To: Council GNSO <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>