Re: [council] "Improvements" Planning Efforts

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

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  
discussions include:
- 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  
Policy Staff
Glen De Saint Géry - GNSO secretariat
Chuck Gomes  and Avri Doria - GNSO  (1 constituency member, 1 nomcom  
appointee)
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  
committee.
Thanks

a.




On 26 Mar 2008, at 10:56, Ute Decker wrote:
> Hi Avri,
>
> 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.
> Best wishes
> Ute
>
> -----Original Message-----
> 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
>
>
> Hi,
>
> 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
> is going
> 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  
> the group;
> - insure that a diverse set of perspectives is included in the  
> planning group
> - 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  
> constituency members.
> 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.
> Thanks
>
> a.