Re: [council] Some initial thoughts on Working Groups

["Olga Cavalli" <olgac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Avri,
thanks for the document, also thanks Chuck for your comments.

These are some of my thoughts and some questions about this issue. Avri, I
comment following the numbers included in your document:

*1- level of interest or activity that brings a WG into existence:*
Some mechanisms and rules should be develop in order to recieve good imput
from other ICANN supporting organizations, from different stakeholders or
from the Internet community as a whole. These mechanisms should be dynamic
and simple enough to make the process to start a WG in a reasonable time.

*2- Council members should, in general, not chair policy working groups
though it is reasonable for them to be chair of process oriented working
groups.*
Avri, Could you clarify this idea?

*3- chairs should be unbiased*
I agree, but sometimes this could be difficult to achieve due to individual
experience and knowledge. The idea of a co-chair is very good but in my
oppinion the major goal is to set up very well ballanced WG, considering its
members backgrounds and individual interests. The number of members in the
WG should also be reasonable in order to allow this ballance but also to be
not too slow.

*6- There needs to be an appeals systems for Working Group chair*
I agree, appeals systems are relevant for the existence of any kind of
organization and applies also for this WG concept.

*7- charters that define their scope and give milestones*
A well defined charter is relevant for reaching any achievement with the
WG. Working by consensus or rough consensus makes any outcome very powerful,
but if the objectives and relevant dates are not well planned and defined,
the time needed for the process could make the outcomes being late, or
the resulting documents being not really focused on the WG objective.

If formed, I am interested in working in a committee that consideres these
issues.

Best regards
Olga






2008/3/6, Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>:
>
> Hi Chuck,
>
> Thanks for reading and commenting so quickly.
>
> Some quick responses.
>
> On 6 Mar 2008, at 11:06, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> I agree.  the reason I worded it as I did "at least one" is that there
> may be cases where the scpe is narow enough or the milestones short
> enough that this may not be necessary.  As I have probably made clear
> various times in the past I am personally very much in favor of co-
> chaired leadership for precisely the reaon you give.  And for the
> additional reason that having co-chairs gives chairs greater latitude
> in participation as it allows for one co-chair to stand aside on an
> issue he or she cares about, leaving the rough consensus call to the
> other co-chair.
>
> > 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
> > sentence?
>
>
> Yes.  Thank you.
>
> Corrected version attached.
>
> a.
>
>
>
>
>
>