RE: [council] Draft reply Council on GNSO reform

[Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> Should I conclude that you were not impressed 
> with any of this experience?

I never said that. I said I am not impressed with 
the WG experience so far. As you said, some of 
the examples had *elements* that should be useful
But in general, I don't think WGs have worked 
well except for non-controversial issues. There 
are also examples of TFs that have worked well, 
and there are certainly elements from them that 
we should consider, as well as the committee of
the whole approach.

What the BGC is calling for is a committment to
WGs. In my opinion it is premature to make such
a committment. There is no evidence that I have
seen that indicates WGs are any better than TFs.

> I challenge you to look carefully at the task 
> force model in the current PDP in the Bylaws. 
> It is very narrowly defined and restrictive 
> and has much less flexibility than anything we 
> have done along the lines of a WG.

I know it very well, and have participated on a
number of TFs. Quite honestly, I like the TF 
model and think there are very good reasons for
it's narrow definition. When it has failed, as
in the Whois TF(s), it had little to do with 
the TF model. The root cause is usually that 
there simply is no consensus. What I hope we
don't do is come up with something that forces
or fakes a consensus when there isn't one.

So again, I support continued use of WGs but I
don't support committing to them as *thee* only
mechanism. That said, I think Philip's latest 
draft puts it very well.


Tim  

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [council] Draft reply Council on GNSO reform
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, November 27, 2007 9:36 am
To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "Avri Doria" <avri@xxxxxxx>, "Council GNSO"
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>


Tim,

Please see my comments 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: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 12:45 AM
> To: Gomes, Chuck
> Cc: Avri Doria; Council GNSO
> Subject: RE: [council] Draft reply Council on GNSO reform
> 
> Chuck, it would be qualified support at best. I am not 
> convinced of the WG model yet. We have very little experience 
> with it as a primary policy development mechanism, and what 
> experience we do have I am not that impressed with. So the 
> proof is in the eating of the pudding.

CG: What about the experience we had with the Introduction of New gTLDs
Committee that lasted for about 20 months? What about the GNSO IDN WG?
What about the Reserved Names WG? All of these incorporated useful
elements of working groups. Should I conclude that you were not
impressed with any of this experience? I am fully aware of the
difficulties with the Whois WG and I think we can learn from that to
design improvements into the WG approach, but we also should recognize
that no model, WG model or any other, will be a panacea. Hence the need
for flexibility.

> 
> We need to define how WGs should be structured and operate 
> and then try it out, and refine as necessary. Until we know 
> that WGs can be consistently effective I don't see them as 
> any better, or worse, than the Task Force model.

Totally agree that it needs to be defined. That is the task in front of
us, "to define how WGs should be structured and operate". As long as we
do that thoroughly and carefully, we have the opportunity to improve the
process. That can and should include the positive elements of
successful working groups and task forces of the past and it definitely
should include flexibility as I think all of us agree. Moreover, it
should include ongoing review and improvement as we learn.

I challenge you to look carefully at the task force model in the current
PDP in the Bylaws. It is very narrowly defined and restrictive and has
much less flexibility than anything we have done along the lines of a
WG.

> 
> 
> Tim 
> 
> 
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: RE: [council] Draft reply Council on GNSO reform
> From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Mon, November 26, 2007 3:31 pm
> To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: "Avri Doria" <avri@xxxxxxx>, "Council GNSO"
> <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> Please translate Tim. Where are you at on this one? 
> Support? Partial Support? Qualidfied Support? Other?
> 
> 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." 
> 
> 
> From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 4:04 PM
> To: Gomes, Chuck
> Cc: Avri Doria; Council GNSO
> Subject: RE: [council] Draft reply Council on GNSO reform
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure I am ready to jump on to the unanimous bandwagon on this
> one. Conferring with my Constituency peers.
> 
> 
> Tim 
> 
> 
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: RE: [council] Draft reply Council on GNSO reform
> From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Mon, November 26, 2007 1:35 pm
> To: "Avri Doria" <avri@xxxxxxx>, "Council GNSO"
> <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> So we are sayiing "we unanimously partially support the 
> recommendation"?
> Sounds a little confusing to me. At the same time, note that in my
> response to Philip just sent a couple minutes ago, I suggested
> "Qualified Support". I think it may be an improvement to say "we
> unanimously support a recommendation with qualifications".
> 
> 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." 
> 
> 
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 10:11 AM
> To: Council GNSO
> Subject: Re: [council] Draft reply Council on GNSO reform
> 
> 
> 
> Hi, 
> 
> I thought that the partial support meant that we, as a group, had
> reservations that were expressed in the included statements.
> 
> 
> In the preface we say the the level os support an unanimous. 
> So partial
> support does not refer to the level of support in the council but
> rather to the degree to which we unanimously support the 
> recommendation
> as written in the BWG draft.
> 
> 
> a.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 26 nov 2007, at 15.57, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> 
> Thanks again Philip. This is looking very good in my opinion, but I
> still have a four areas of concern.
> 
> 3. All policy is developed in working groups in place of task 
> forces of
> Council.
> 
> I still don't understand what positive elements in the current task
> force model would be excluded in a working group model. I would
> appreciate some explanation here. For the moment at least, I think we
> should say "Support", not "Partial Support". I have no problem
> emphasizing the need to include flexibility in the WG model but do not
> support the suggestion to include 'task forces'.
> 
> 3.2 Steps to improve effectiveness/ efficiency: proposals for running
> working groups.
> 
> Why only "Partial Support" for this? I think we should say "Support".
> 
> 4.1b Amend the bylaws to clarify the limited set of 
> "consensus policies"
> upon which the GNSO may make change.
> 
> I think we should say "Support", not "Partial Support".
> 
> 5.2 Steps to improve effectiveness. The monitoring / oversight role of
> Council. 
> 
> 
> Why only "Partial Support" for this? I think we should say "Support".
> 
> 
> 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." 
> 
> 
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
> Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 2:18 PM
> To: Philip Sheppard; Council GNSO
> Subject: RE: [council] Draft reply Council on GNSO reform
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you very much Philip for the very quick turn-around on this and
> for a job very well done. I inserted my comments in the attached
> document.
> 
> 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." 
> 
> 
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard
> Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 9:04 AM
> To: 'Council GNSO'
> Subject: [council] Draft reply Council on GNSO reform
> 
> 
> 
> 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 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>