RE: [council] Draft reply Council on GNSO reform

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

Well said Avri.  I also believe that representativeness should generally
be defined in the wider sense and I think that the BGC WG is seeking
that same goal.  At the same time I would add the following: while I
believe we should always try to maximize representativeness in the
broadest sense possible, it is particularly important to try to have
representativeness of the most impacted parties.

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 Avri Doria
> Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2007 8:30 AM
> To: Council GNSO
> Subject: Re: [council] Draft reply Council on GNSO reform
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I agree completely as regards the need to not rely on numbers 
> and to make sure that the WG process cannot be gamed or stacked.
> 
> I don't think inclusiveness necessarily is just about a numbers game.
> Rather i think that the stakeholders will include the major 
> constituencies and will have membership.  The council will 
> need to be representative of these groups and their members.
> 
> On the other hand, there may be interests that are not 
> included among the members of the stakeholder groups either 
> because, while dynamic, the constituencies and stakeholder 
> groups may not be able to absorb new stakeholders that 
> quickly, or because those interests are only tangentially 
> involved in ICANN and might only be relevant for specific 
> policy actions.
> 
> Also I think inclusiveness means allowing for participation 
> in working groups by ccNSO, GAC, ALAC and other ICANN 
> participants who are not normally among those represented in the GNSO.
> 
> Perhaps this is only a semantic difference and representative 
> includes all of those I am listing under inclusive.  But in 
> this case we need to speak of the sense of representative we 
> mean, i.e. representative of GNSO membership or 
> representative of the ICANN community, or representative of 
> the Internetcommunity who uses the DNS.  In this case I think 
> the structure needs to find the right balance between 
> representative in the narrow sense and representative in the 
> wider sense.
> I have been using inclusive to refer to representative in the 
> wider sense.
> 
> 
> 
> a.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 22 nov 2007, at 06.09, Tim Ruiz wrote:
> 
> > 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>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
>