Re: [council] "Improvements" Planning Efforts
Thanks for volunteering.
I would like to point out that this planning group is really just the
beginning. As was pointed out in the BGC-GWG Report as well as in the
status the planing committee sent to Board, there will be, we expect
be many task oriented group yet to be formed. e.g. current
- A standing committee on council process. This committee would be
responsible for dealing with issues like WG structures and revision of
the PDP process. One of the ideas being explored is that each of
these and perhaps other issues would have a separate team focused on
creating specific draft recommendations. this reflects some
discussions w have already had in council in ND.
- A standing Committee on Operational issues such GNSO communications,
constituency operational support mechanisms, council operations
support mechanisms ...
There will also be a discussion on various teams to handle specific
topics such as how to get more involvement from constituencies, how to
bring in new constituencies and the myriad of other specific tasks and
topics that fall out of the Board's recommendations.
This is all very sketchy at the moment, but the main idea, as I
understand it, is that the planning committee recommends charters for
setting up the standing committees to the council, and if the council
accepts these charters, the committees are formed, they recruit
membership from the constituencies and community at large and then get
to work on things in a charter that the council has approved. The
standing committees are then responsible for doing the chartered tasks
and would be the ones to recommend the charters for the specific work
teams to the council, though the planing committee may offer some
initial suggestions. Part of the work the planning team is trying to
do at the moment is to develop proposals for the initial charters for
the standing committees. These yet to be formed standing committees,
are in my view the real place the work of the transition will be done.
The main function of the planning committee, in other words is to
bootstrap the process by making recommendations to the council and
then to create reports for the GNSO council and board on the progress
of the transition.
My goal is to keep this team as small as possible. And my preference
was for a fewer members in this initial bootstrap group. But having
said that, if the predominant view of the council is that we need to
allow for one person per constituency (not necessarily a council
member) and nomcom members instead of just a few organizationally
oriented people with a representative diversity of views, then that is
the way we will have to go. I am, however, still hoping to keep it
small (which I now is a relative term)
To summarize, at the moment there are 5 people who have put their
names forward (to varying degrees), that I am aware of:
- Ken Stubbs
- Olga Cavalli
- Philip Sheppard
- Milton Mueller
- Ute Decker
(4 constituency members and 1 nomcom appointee)
currently there are 8 people on the Committee.
Denise Michel, Liz Gasster, Robert Hogarth, Penelope Wrenn from
Glen De Saint Géry - GNSO secretariat
Chuck Gomes and Avri Doria - GNSO (1 constituency member, 1 nomcom
Susan Crawford - liaison from the Board Governance Committee.
adding 6 or 7 more would bring it to 14-15.
I tend to think small stops at a dozen, maybe a baker's dozen.
To reiterate, personally, I would like the council to pick 2-3 people
from a list, but given the list of names we have so far, I want to
point out that there is no one on it that I would not welcome on the
On 26 Mar 2008, at 10:56, Ute Decker wrote:
In preparation of this week's Council call, I would like to
volunteer to contribute to the work of the planning group because I
think this is one of the most important and urgent work items and
because I believe that there is a merit in broadening this out to
all constituencies that care to be represented. I realize that some
see downsides in adding one member per constituency - however
constituencies are the structure we have at the moment and I would
hope that having more than one representative from e.g. 'the
commercial side' will not distract in any way from the constructive
character of the work going forward.
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: 18 March 2008 18:56
To: Council GNSO
Subject: [council] "Improvements" Planning Efforts
Attached a copy of a message that is being sent to the Board
concerning work that is beginning on the GSNO Improvements. As you
will note we
have started a planning group together with the staff. This group
to be doing the high level planning of how we will organize the
main work of the GNSO Improvements Project, and will not be
responsible for any substantive decisions or recommendations about
the improvements themselves.
Currently Chuck and I as well as several members of the ICANN Policy
staff, including Denise, Liz and Rob, are members of this group.
This is just the core of this group. We have invited the Board BGC
GNSO Review Working Group to add a member to this group and need to
add more GNSO members.
We want to satisfy three goals simultaneously in adding members to
- insure that a diverse set of perspectives is included in the
- include some participants with relevant organizational experience
- keep the group small.
In the GNSO Improvements Project we will not need to restrict
ourselves to council members, but for this planning committee, I
would suggest that we do choose from among council members and
I also think that adding a person from each constituency might be
unwieldy and hope that we can limit participation to a few people
who can be trusted in this planning task by several constituencies.
As you can read in the note below, we are planing to organize
several other Standing Committees and other work teams and there
will be a large number of opportunities for participation by council
members, constituency members, and others in the ICANN community in
the groups making the actual recommendations.
I would like to initiate conversations on the list on the
designation of 2-3 other members of this group. I would like to
resolve this as soon as possible, with resolution during our
upcoming meeting at the latest if not before.