[council] FW: Conversation Wrap-Up & Next Steps

["Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

All,

 

In discussion with Beth Novek and colleagues from the Governance Lab last
week, a suggestion emerged that we could potentially narrow down the list of
MSI Panel proposals for more detailed discussion.

 

It is not yet 100% clear to me as to whether or not we will be able to meet
with one or more of the team from the Gov Lab in Singapore but it seems
likely and, in any event, it's useful to consider how we might respond to
the output of the panel, in particular where it seems to link most closely
with our own work.  We discussed condensing their work into a most relevant
sub-set for further discussion

 

>From their perspective and having made themselves aware of the work of the
GNSO, the suggested sub-set (from them) for further condensation is as
follows:

1.       Move from "Stakeholder" engagement to Global Engagement:
<http://bit.ly/1k7FDNj> http://bit.ly/1k7FDNj

2.       Use expert networking:  <http://bit.ly/1lof1c5>
http://bit.ly/1lof1c5

3.       Get Broad-based input/crowdsource at each stage of decision-making:
<http://bit.ly/1czpNXn> http://bit.ly/1czpNXn

4.       Use Open Data and open contracting:  <http://bit.ly/1jcv3Rt>
http://bit.ly/1jcv3Rt

5.       Experiment with Innovative Voting Techniques:
<http://bit.ly/1nwta2H> http://bit.ly/1nwta2H

6.       Impose Rotating Term Limits:  <http://bit.ly/1nUmkEr>
http://bit.ly/1nUmkEr

I also talked with the Gov Lab people about considering the above proposals
through a (non-exhaustive) list of criteria as follows:

 

A.      Is the proposal relevant to us?

B.      Is it currently applicable to our work?

C.      How could the proposal be modified/amended/advanced to be applicable
or more applicable to our work?

D.      How might we pilot/test these proposals in order to determine
whether and how the proposal could be a useful amendment or reform for
ICANN?

 

None of this pre-supposes that this work was commissioned, initiated or
executed in a way which we consider optimal.

It simply takes a "we are where we are" view of the work and recognises that
we have the opportunity to potentially engage with the team that undertook
the work.

 

In addition, we will still have the opportunity to provide formal public
comment on this and engage through any other applicable forums at the ICANN
meeting in Singapore.

 

Thoughts or input welcome.

 

 

Jonathan