RE: [council] Request from Kristina Rosette Re: Solicitation of Outside Advisors

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Margie for the detailed response.  I certainly agree that Section
10 is out of date and would add that it was drafted very poorly in the
first place; it was impractical from the beginning and is even more so
today.  One major change that has occurred is the introduction of the WG
model; the closest thing to a WG in the current Bylaws is the Task
Force, but we quit using those several years ago.

 

I also believe that it would be much better for the WG to enlist the
support of experts before they prepare their final report.  For the
Council to do it after the WG submits its final report would put the
Council more into a policy making role instead of being the manager of
the policy development process.  Also, it would raise some critical
questions such as these: Would expert advice trump consensus
recommendations? Would each interest group want to propose expert
consultants to support their point of view? Would the Council need to
task the WG with additional work depending on the expert advice? 

 

On first glance, it seems to me that this issue fits into the remit of
the PPSC so I have cc'd Jeff Neuman, PPSC  chair.

 

Chuck

 

From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Margie Milam
Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 1:25 PM
To: GNSO Council 
Subject: [council] Request from Kristina Rosette Re: Solicitation of
Outside Advisors

 

Dear All,

 

This is in response to Kristina Rosette's request at the Council's 23
June meeting regarding Staff's interpretation of Bylaws Section 10(b) of
Annex A pertaining to the solicitation of outside advisors. 

After reviewing this internally, I learned that there is no established
procedure to seek outside opinions under Section 10(b) and that this
Section has not been invoked in the past by the GNSO Council.     

Section 10 (Council Deliberation) describes the process to be followed
by the GNSO Council upon receipt of a PDP Final Report.   Note that this
section is largely out-of-date, since the GNSO Council's practice
differs from that described in Section 10, and Annex A is being updated
through the GNSO restructuring work currently underway.    Section 10
states: 

"10a.   Upon receipt of a Final Report, whether as the result of a task
force or otherwise, the Council chair will (i) distribute the Final
Report to all Council members; and (ii) call for a Council meeting
within ten (10) calendar days thereafter. The Council may commence its
deliberation on the issue prior to the formal meeting, including via
in-person meetings, conference calls, e-mail discussions or any other
means the Council may choose. The deliberation process shall culminate
in a formal Council meeting either in person or via teleconference,
wherein the Council will work towards achieving a Successful GNSO Vote
to present to the Board.

10b.     The Council may, if it so chooses, solicit the opinions of
outside advisors at its final meeting. The opinions of these advisors,
if relied upon by the Council, shall be (i) embodied in the Council's
report to the Board, (ii) specifically identified as coming from an
outside advisor; and (iii) be accompanied by a detailed statement of the
advisor's (x) qualifications and relevant experience; and (y) potential
conflicts of interest."

Staff's view is that outside opinions are an important part of the PDP
process to enable the development of fact-based, thoroughly researched
policies.   This view is consistent with the Board-approved BGC GNSO
Improvements Report which noted that working groups should engage in
fact finding, research, and should seek expert opinions where necessary
when developing new policies.   Given the Council's new strategic role
as a manager and supervisor of the policy development process,
Kristina's inquiry raises the question of whether these opinions should
be sought by the working group during its deliberations, rather than by
the Council after the Final Report (per Section 10(b)).    In our view,
it may be more efficient to seek the opinion during the working group
deliberations in order for the opinions to be considered by the working
group and reflected in the recommendations of the Working Group's Final
Report.

 

Seeking an outside opinion raises important issues for the Council and
ICANN to consider.   There may be budgetary implications in the event
that an outside advisor is unwilling to provide its opinion at no
charge.   If it were necessary for ICANN to contract with the outside
advisor to retain an outside advisor to give advice to ICANN's GNSO
Council,  ICANN would need to follow its normal contracting procedures
(including e.g., conducting conflicts checks, issuing RFPs, and
performing vendor due diligence).   Any costs associated with the
retaining the services of the outside advisor would need to be properly
budgeted and allocated.    These are just a few examples of the types of
issues to be addressed when seeking outside opinions.    

 

We recommend that the issue of outside opinions be evaluated by one of
the GNSO restructuring work teams so that standard procedures can be
developed for future requests.   However, if the GNSO desires to seek
the opinions of outside advisers in the interim, we recommend that the
Council adopt a resolution to that effect, and provide sufficient
information of the scope/nature of the opinion sought so that we can
evaluate how to best meet the GNSO's timeframe and needs.

 

Best regards,

 

Margie

 

_________

 

Margie Milam

Senior Policy Counselor

ICANN

__________