ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


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

RE: [council] "Improvements" Planning Efforts

  • To: <avri@xxxxxxx>, <udecker@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [council] "Improvements" Planning Efforts
  • From: <tony.ar.holmes@xxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 16:52:20 -0000
  • Cc: <met@xxxxxxx>, <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxx>
  • In-reply-to: <6ADAD682-D7EB-425B-A68C-0FB0383C20FF@acm.org>
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Thread-index: AciPMy0x/2LtEyaiQ42OLHk6dDRzDgALUUZQ
  • Thread-topic: [council] "Improvements" Planning Efforts


The ISPCP held a conference call this afternoon and very much support this 
initiative. It was felt important that we also engage and the constituency is 
fully supportive of Wolf-Ulrich Knoben's willingness to joint the team of 
volunteers. Can you please add his name to the list.

This message is cc'd to Wolf Ulrich



-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: 26 March 2008 11:17
To: Ute Decker; Council GNSO
Cc: Metalitz, Steven
Subject: 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 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
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.



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.

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