[council] with reference to Agenda item 6: Initial discussion - developing a GNSO Policy Strategy for 2010.

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

People may have noticed this item in the agenda, without much  
explanation.  Here is some background.
My thought is get the conversation started on how the GNSO and the  
GNSO Council develop the required Policy Strategy.  In suggesting  
this, I am not suggesting that the current council should determine  
the future strategy or the priorities within that strategy.  Rather I  
am proposing that it is time for the constituencies (past, present and  
interest groups) and community to start developing the ground work so  
that the new Council, once seated can begin to focus on Policy work.
I quite specifically did not call this bluesky, because we did one of  
those a year ago, and I still shutter at the enormity, complexity and  
randomness of the list we derived.  Rather I think this council needs  
to figure out how to get the process started in the community.
The question might come as to why start now?  I have several reasons  
for thinking it may be time to start:
- It has been on our todo list for a long time, I just kept putting it  
off until the major council tasks in the
restructuring and reorganization were done.  I think we are almost  
there now.
- the BCG recommendations approved by the Board included this in the  
initial tasks as can be seen in some of the quotes I have included  
from the REPORT OF THE
BOARD GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE GNSO REVIEW WORKING GROUP ON GNSO  
IMPROVEMENTS.

Another issue may concern the legitimacy of this council, that is  
nearing the end of its term, setting the agenda for future policy work  
work.  I tend to see the effort more as one that set the stage with a  
way to organize,  the constituencies, the candidate constituencies and  
the community and start gathering the information needed to start  
discussion in earnest in Seoul and continue thereafter.
thanks

a.



Some Background info from
REPORT OF THE BOARD GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE GNSO REVIEW WORKING GROUP ON  
GNSO IMPROVEMENTS.
2.2.1 LSE Review Recommendation

9. Develop and publish annually a two-year GNSO Policy Development  
Plan that
dovetails with ICANN’s budget and strategic planning.

Page 24

It would also be helpful for the PDP process to align better with  
ICANN’s strategic plan
and operations plan, as was proposed in LSE Rec. #9. Recommendation #9  
suggested
that the GNSO publish annually a “Policy Development Plan” for current  
and upcoming
work.
Indeed, it is important across the entire ICANN community that  
projects and
resource allocations are better aligned with strategic objectives.  
ICANN has a well
developed planning process, with a three year Strategic Plan that is  
reviewed and updated
annually and an annual Operating Plan. As the GNSO Council’s policy  
development
work is such a critical part of ICANN’s function, it is important that  
there be a strong
nexus between the work plan of the GNSO Council and the ICANN planning  
process.
We therefore recommend that the Council, GNSO constituencies and staff  
execute,
within six months, a more formal “Policy Development Plan” that is  
linked to ICANN’s
overall strategic plan, but at the same time is sufficiently flexible  
to accommodate
changes in priority determined by rapid evolution in the DNS  
marketplace and
unexpected initiatives (e.g., the use of a wildcard by a Registry).



Page 26

The PDP should be better aligned with ICANN’s strategic plan and  
operations plan.
A formal Policy Development Plan should be linked to ICANN’s overall  
strategic
plan, but at the same time should be sufficiently flexible to  
accommodate changes in
priority determined by rapid evolution in the DNS marketplace and  
unexpected
initiatives.

Page 26

(i) The Council, constituencies and staff to execute, within six  
months, a more
formal “Policy Development Plan” that is linked to ICANN’s overall  
strategic
plan, but at the same time is sufficiently flexible to accommodate  
changes in
priority (establishing the above-described implementation team for that
purpose); and
27
(ii) Staff to propose, within six months, metrics that can bring the  
PDP more in
sync with ICANN’s planning.

Page 27

Third, the amount of
time and energy that the Council has devoted to task forces, whether  
in terms of
establishing them, overseeing their work, or debating their  
conclusions, has left
insufficient time for the Council to focus on what is perhaps its most  
important function –
setting the overall strategy for managing policy development by the  
GNSO Council.


Page 30

In addition, the Council could analyze trends and changes in the gTLD  
arena and, as a
consequence, provide advice on the use of ICANN resources affecting  
the gTLD name
space. The Council could begin a constructive dialogue with a broad  
range of Internet
stakeholders in order to fully understand DNS-related technologies,  
trends, and markets.
This knowledge can help the Council set the appropriate strategic  
vision and direction for
gTLD policy development, as well as coordinate the process in a  
meaningful way. Given
that there is significant expertise reflected among the GNSO  
constituencies, the
constituencies should also be invited to participate and contribute to  
the Council’s overall
analysis of trends and changes in the gTLD arena

Page 37

Proposed Action Item: The Board requests:
(i) The Council and constituencies to participate fully in the ICANN
planning process, including providing a three year view (for the  
Strategic
Plan) and an annual plan