<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [council] Conversation Wrap-Up & Next Steps
Agreed and thanks from me too. Good points Mikey.
The issues Mikey raises and related points were some of the concerns I felt
with regard to the work of the MSI panel.
Indeed, whilst my original mail below referred to the GNSO in parts, when I
have used "we", I mean the Council.
A couple of other background remarks in that may help here:
1. The MSI Panel based used a couple of primers to inform and
normalise their understanding
a. The ICANN Primer
http://www.icann.org/en/about/planning/strategic-engagement/multistakeholder
-innovation/primer-20nov13-en.pdf
b. The ICANN Primer - Technical & Business Functions
http://www.icann.org/en/about/planning/strategic-engagement/multistakeholder
-innovation/primer-tech-business-20nov13-en.pdf
2. I gathered from my conversations with the Gov Lab people that they
had made particular efforts and felt that one or more staff had made good
steps forward in understanding the GNSO.
Thanks again,
Jonathan
From: Bruce Tonkin [mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 05 March 2014 22:11
To: Mike O'Connor; jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [council] Conversation Wrap-Up & Next Steps
Hello Mike,
The distinction below I think is very helpful.
Regards,
Bruce Tonkin
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Mike O'Connor
Sent: Thursday, 6 March 2014 8:01 AM
To: jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [council] Conversation Wrap-Up & Next Steps
hi Jonathan,
thanks for this extensive update and your leadership on this topic.
the key distinction i've been trying to make, in many fora, is the two
really different kinds of work that happen within the GNSO. they are:
- SG/Constituency - stakeholder-focused homes for participants in the GNSO.
these organizations are the focal point for outreach, the "staircase of
engagement." this is where new people are welcomed, acquire the skills and
knowledge they need to effectively participate in and lead working groups
and in turn help others join the process. these are "functions" - they last
forever and continuously improve their work.
- Working Groups and the PDP - policy/issue focused "projects" that have a
beginning, middle and end. in my view these working groups are the
"customers" of the SG/Constituencies and they look to the SG/Constituencies
for effective participants in the PDPs we supervise.
the point i've been trying to make to the MSI folks, and others, is that the
needs of those two parts of the GNSO mission are *really different* and
introducing changes without a clear understanding of that difference can
lead to a tremendous tangle. i am quite relaxed, in fact enthusiastic,
about some of the recommendations when i stand with my Constituency-member
hat on. i think a lot of the things described in the report would be
tremendously helpful to us in the ISPCP. i'm much more cautious about some
of these ideas in the PDP context - the notion of "crowdsourced" PDPs makes
my blood run cold.
clearly these are only my ideas and they undoubtedly need refinement - but i
think if we can continue to inform this effort with ideas like those, we
stand a chance of getting a lot of good ideas from it. i think that we the
Council, as the stewards of the PDP, need to keep a close eye on improving
the pool of *qualified* participants in working groups, and not accidentally
causing more harm than good.
my two cents. thanks again Jonathan, a really helpful post.
mikey
On Mar 5, 2014, at 5:11 AM, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
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
PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE:
OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|