Re: [council] Conversation Wrap-Up & Next Steps
Mikey, at the time of publication Mary and I actually went through the document that was prepared by GovLabs and made some proposed edits / additions (see attached). As the primer had already been distributed to the panel, it was decided not to post a revised version at that stage. However, if you are now considering posting these on the GNSO web-site, you may want to consider including the proposed edits which aimed to provide some further clarifications and details especially in relation to the GNSO PDP. Best regards, Marika From: Mike O'Connor <mike@xxxxxxxxxx> Date: Thursday 6 March 2014 14:17 To: Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Cc: "bruce.tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <bruce.tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: Re: [council] Conversation Wrap-Up & Next Steps i¹ve just scanned these primers and? they look really good. i think we (GNSO and GNSO Council) should give these a careful review and, once they pass muster, give them wider distribution. maybe on the ³Basics² page of the GNSO website? thanks for those links Jonathan. m On Mar 6, 2014, at 5:38 AM, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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 ³we², 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-i > nnovation/primer-20nov13-en.pdf > > b. The ICANN Primer Technical & Business Functions > http://www.icann.org/en/about/planning/strategic-engagement/multistakeholder-i > nnovation/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 i¹ve 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 ³staircase of > engagement.² 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 ³functions² - they last > forever and continuously improve their work. > > > > - Working Groups and the PDP ? policy/issue focused ³projects² that have a > beginning, middle and end. in my view these working groups are the > ³customers² of the SG/Constituencies and they look to the SG/Constituencies > for effective participants in the PDPs we supervise. > > > > the point i¹ve 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. i¹m much more cautious about some of these ideas > in the PDP context ? the notion of ³crowdsourced² 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, it¹s 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 ³we are where we are² 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 > <http://www.haven2.com/> , HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, > LinkedIn, etc.) > PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com <http://www.haven2.com> , HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) Attachment:
ICANN Primer-MW MK markup.doc Attachment:
ICANN Primer-MW MK markup.doc Attachment:
smime.p7s
|