RE: [council] Draft reply Council on GNSO reform

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

Thanks Avri.  Please note my responses below.

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: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 9:27 PM
> To: Council GNSO
> Subject: Re: [council] Draft reply Council on GNSO reform
> 
> 
> 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?

CG: The above seems okay to me.

> 
> 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 a
> representative of the relevant stockholders would be a better choice.

CG: Not sure I fully understand your point.  To the extent that you may
be minimizing the importance of representativeness, I would probably
disagree.  In my opinion, 'the appropriateness of the process' includes
evaluating representativeness.  That does not mean that input that is
not very representative should not be considered but it does mean that
efforts should be made to ensure that vocal minorities should not be
able to capture the process.  On your last point, I agree that there
might be cases where it would be useful to invite a "team which is
representative of the relevant stockholders" although I really don't
think we should restrict it to "stockholders" unless of course it is
VeriSign stock! :)

> 
> 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.

CG: Sounds good to me.

> 
> 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.

CG: This is consistent with my comments on this point.

> 
> 
> 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.

CG: I am okay with leaving the text on representativeness but doing so
in a way that does not eliminate the locus for inclusion.

> 
> 
> 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.

CG: Works for me.
> 
> 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>
> 
>