[council] Members and participants in teams

[Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hello All,

Listening to the discussion about membership of review teams and the list of 
volunteers that want to be involved, I would like to make a few observations.

- in the early days of the DNSO/GNSO we did work with task forces that had a 
fixed number of members, with the option of one or two members from each 
constituency

 - As part of the new gTLD work we moved to a working group model where 
participation was open, because many people want to participate in the policy 
development

- we have seen a huge participation in the CCWG working group on 
Accountability.   This has been an opportunity for many community members to 
spend as little or as much time as they would like.   The mailing list is open 
to all, as are phone calls.   The working group did have a set of formal 
members and they received travel funding to the face-to-face meetings.

- there were times though when the CCWG on accountability  needed to deliberate 
and make decision on next steps - this was difficult when the attempt was to 
get all participants to agree, with some more participants in some factions 
than others

- the review teams are still operating in the old task force model

- I think the review teams need to take the best aspects of a finite review 
team and wide participation

- I think this could be done by:

        - a finite set of members that would receive funding if required and 
that the members be balanced across the interests

        - an open participant model where those that want to contribute can be 
part of the mailing list and join calls as per the CCWG

        - the members deliberate on all the material including inputs from 
participants to produce the final recommendations.    In particular the members 
should prioritise the recommendations as in many cases recommendations from 
review teams need significant resources to implement.

Regards,
Bruce Tonkin