ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


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

RE: [council] Some initial thoughts on Working Groups

  • To: "Avri Doria" <avri@xxxxxxx>, "Council GNSO" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [council] Some initial thoughts on Working Groups
  • From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2008 11:06:56 -0500
  • In-reply-to: <349BBCD1-6B96-4AEB-80CC-16DB63407A43@acm.org>
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Thread-index: Ach/iyPyqbwFi7fcQeuRvFguAU6WQQAFb0Xw
  • Thread-topic: [council] Some initial thoughts on Working Groups

Thanks Avri.  This seems like an excellent starting point to me.

I think there are a couple of words missing in the following in the
first paragraph after the list of bullets on page 2: "These rules also
do specify any guidelines for the relationship between the GNSO, the
GNSO Council and the WGs. As it stands, these rules may not a sufficient
recipe for a WG as it can leave a WG either floundering without recourse
or subject it to undue influence from the GNSO council."   Is there a
'not' missing in the first sentence and a 'be' missing in the second

It seems to me that the first additional guideline you list also applies
to the new PDP work; it is at least one I have been thinking about some.
The 'level of interest' may be a factor we want to consider in the
process of deciding whether or not to initiate a PDP, although that in
itself should not be the criterion.  (As Liz already pointed out, the WG
and PDP efforts will be interdependent.)

I definitely think that having a Council liaison on every WG is a good
idea and think that where possible two liaisons may be good, especially
in WGs that may last for a considerable length of time, thereby
providing a backup liaison.  But I think this should be balanced with a
maximum limit on how many Councilors should be on the WG for the
following reasons: 1) to make sure that the WG and the WG manager (the
Council) are relatively independent of one another; 2) to minimize the
chances of Councilors and WG members being spread too thin in their
individual work loads; 3) to lessen the likelihood of having scheduling
conflicts due to involvement in multiple activities.  I would go one
step further and suggest minimizing the number of working groups that
any one individual may participate in simultaneously; my rationale here
would include reasons 2) and 3) in the previous sentence plus the
following: to encourage involvement of more and new participants in the
policy development process.  As you noted, we don't need to be overly
rigid, but variance from the guidelines should happen only on an
exception basis and for well documented reasons.

I will try to do something similar for the PDP revision but it will
probably be a few days before I can get to it.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 7:51 AM
> To: Council GNSO
> Subject: [council] Some initial thoughts on Working Groups
> Hi,
> Attached is a brief set of notes on considerations for forming WGs.   
> This is the deliverable that was discussed briefly at our 
> Thursday meeting in ND.  It is my personal opinion formed 
> from participation in  
> and chair of many working groups, and similar groups, over 
> the years.   
> as such it has no status other then as a suggestion for a possible  
> point from which to start conversations.   I am sure there are more  
> considerations then what I have included and I am also sure 
> that there are many ways of looking at this issue that I have 
> not touched upon.
> I believe that we will need to spend some time on our plans 
> to dealing with the GNSO restructuring at our next meeting on 
> 27 March.  At that time I will suggest that we form a 
> standing Committee to work on guidelines  for WGs.  Perhaps 
> this Standing Committee will also be able to deal with the 
> questions on PDP as they are fundamentally linked with WGs.
> In any case this draft is not for discussion at today's (6 
> March) meeting and is meant as one starting place for the 
> discussion we, the GNSO community and the ICANN community at 
> large need to engage in.
> thanks
> a.

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