[ga] GNSO Improvements

["GNSO.SECRETARIAT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org; liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org]
[To: ga[at]gnso.icann.org; announce[at]gnso.icann.org]
[To: regional-liaisons[at]icann.org]

http://www.icann.org/topics/gnso-improvements/

GNSO Improvements

    * Summary of the Report of the Board Governance Committee GNSO 
Review Working Group on GNSO Improvements, 3 February 2008 [PDF, 16K]
http://www.icann.org/topics/gnso-improvements/gnso-improvements-report-summary-03feb08.pdf
    * Report of the Board Governance Committee GNSO Review Working 
Group on GNSO Improvements, 3 February 2008 [PDF, 195K]
http://www.icann.org/topics/gnso-improvements/gnso-improvements-report-03feb08.pdf
    * Report Annexes
http://www.icann.org/topics/gnso-improvements/gnso-report-annexes.htm

On 30 March 2007, the Board created a working group of the Board 
Governance Committee (“BGC”), comprising current and former Board 
members, to oversee improvements to the Generic Supporting Names 
Organization (GNSO). [Its members are Roberto Gaetano (Chair), Rita 
Rodin, Vanda Scartezini, Tricia Drakes, Raimundo Beca, Susan Crawford, 
and Vittorio Bertola.] The purpose of the "BGC GNSO Review Working 
Group" ("BGC WG") is to consider the independent reviews conducted by 
the London School of Economics Public Policy Group and others to 
determine whether, in general, the GNSO has a continuing purpose in the 
ICANN structure and, if so, whether any change in structure or 
operations is desirable to improve its effectiveness. The Board charged 
the BGC WG with recommending a comprehensive proposal to improve the 
effectiveness of the GNSO, including its policy activities, structure, 
operations and communications.
This effort is part of ICANN's ongoing commitment to its evolution and 
improvement, which includes a comprehensive schedule for independent 
review of ICANN's structures, as well as of the Board. The reviews are 
intended to ensure an independent examination of the role and operation 
of key elements of ICANN. These reviews are conducted in an objective 
manner by independent evaluators, under guidance from the Board on each 
review's terms of reference, and with the opportunity for public comment 
on the results of the reviews.
The GNSO Improvements Report (Report) linked here [PDF, 195K] and 
summarized below reflects the BGC WG's examination of many aspects of 
the GNSO's functioning, including the use of working groups and the 
overall policy development process (PDP), and the structure of the GNSO 
Council and its constituencies. The Working Group has been guided by 
several key objectives, including:
    * Maximizing the ability for all interested stakeholders to 
participate in the GNSO's processes;
    * Ensuring recommendations can be developed on gTLD "consensus 
policies" for Board review, and that the subject matter of "consensus 
policies" is clearly defined;
    * Ensuring policy development processes are based on 
thoroughly-researched, well-scoped objectives, and are run in a 
predictable manner that yields results that can be implemented 
effectively; and
    * Improving communications and administrative support for GNSO 
objectives.
Above all, the Working Group has sought ways to improve inclusiveness 
and representativeness in the GNSO's work, while increasing its 
effectiveness and efficiency. The BGC WG's deliberations have achieved 
consensus on a comprehensive set of recommendations that addresses five 
main areas outlined below.
Summary of GNSO Improvements Report

Adopting a Working Group Model: A working group model should become the 
focal point for policy development and enhance the policy development 
process by making it more inclusive and representative, and – ultimately 
– more effective and efficient. This approach can be a more constructive 
way of establishing areas of agreement than task forces, where 
membership is limited and discussion can become polarized along 
constituency lines. It also enables key parties to become involved in 
the beginning and work together to address complex or controversial 
issues. Appointing skilled chairs and drafters, as well as proper 
scoping of the WG’s objectives, will be integral parts of development of 
a successful model. Steps should be taken immediately to move to a 
working group model for future policy development work, developing 
appropriate operating principles, rules and procedures that can draw 
upon expertise gained from policy development in the IETF, W3C, RIRs and 
other organizations.
Revising the PDP: The PDP needs to be revised to make it more effective 
and responsive to ICANN’s policy development needs. It should be brought 
in-line with the time and effort actually required to develop policy, 
and made consistent with ICANN’s existing contracts (including, but not 
limited to, clarifying the appropriate scope of GNSO “consensus policy” 
development). While the procedure for developing “consensus policies” 
will need to continue to be established by the Bylaws as long as 
required by ICANN’s contracts, the GNSO Council and Staff should propose 
new PDP rules for the Board’s consideration and approval that contain 
more flexibility. The new rules should emphasize the importance of the 
preparation that must be done before launch of a working group or other 
activity, such as public discussion, fact-finding, and expert research 
in order to define properly the scope, objective and schedule for a 
specific policy development goal, and the development of metrics for 
measuring success.
Restructuring the GNSO Council: The Council should move away from being 
a legislative body concerned primarily with voting towards becoming a 
smaller, more focused strategic entity, composed of four broad 
stakeholder groups, with strengthened management and oversight of the 
policy development process, term limits for members of the Council, the 
elimination of weighted voting and a training and development curriculum 
for Council members. The BGC WG deliberated extensively as to the most 
appropriate way to restructure constituency representation on the 
Council. We recommend a 19-person Council consisting of 16 elected 
members, four from each of four stakeholder groups, with two of these 
groups representing those parties “under contract” with ICANN, namely 
registries (4 seats) and registrars (4 seats). These we refer to as 
“ICANN contracted parties.” The other two stakeholder groups will 
represent those who are “affected by the contracts” (“ICANN 
non-contracted parties”), including commercial registrants (4 seats) and 
non-commercial registrants (4 seats). In addition, three Councilors 
would be appointed by the Nominating Committee (pending conclusion of 
the NomCom Improvement process). In addition, as the Council moves from 
being a legislative body to a strategic manager overseeing policy 
development, the current emphasis on formal voting should be 
significantly reduced.
A minority of Working Group members suggests explicitly recommending 
that "ICANN non-contracted parties" be apportioned into 5 seats for 
commercial registrants and 3 seats for non-commercial registrants.
An additional minority view suggests -- as stated in the Working Group's 
previous report -- that the GNSO Council should have the flexibility to 
propose an alternative configuration of the stakeholder groups that 
comprise the "ICANN non-contracted parties" side, provided that such 
alternative is submitted with sufficient notice to permit the Board to 
vote on the proposal at the Paris ICANN meeting in June 2008. 
Conversely, if no alternative proposal is forwarded to the Board within 
this timeframe, the configuration proposed above should be implemented.
Enhancing Constituencies: Constituency procedures and operations should 
become more transparent, accountable and accessible. The Board should 
ask the GNSO constituencies to work with staff to develop participation 
rules and operating procedures for all constituencies that set certain 
minimum standards regarding the importance of transparency and 
accountability. The criteria for participation in any ICANN constituency 
should be objective, standardized and clearly stated. In addition, Staff 
should work with each of the constituencies to develop global, targeted 
outreach programs aimed at increasing participation and interest in the 
GNSO policy process, including information on the option to self-form 
new constituencies.
Improving Communication and Coordination with ICANN Structures: There 
should be more frequent contact and communication between the GNSO 
Council, GNSO constituencies and the members the Council elects to the 
Board, and among the Chairs of the GNSO, other Supporting Organizations 
(SOs) and Advisory Committees (ACs), especially in advance of each ICANN 
Meeting. The Council and the GNSO constituencies should consider 
additional ways in which the GNSO can further improve communication, 
cooperation and coordination with other ICANN structures.
The Report describes our recommendations and rationale in detail. We 
believe there is broad and strong support for changes in the functioning 
of the GNSO, based on input from GNSO participants and other members of 
the ICANN community. While the need to update and improve the GNSO is 
not disputed, there is no magical set of proposals that could be 
received without controversy or opposition. We have therefore balanced, 
as best we can, different – and sometimes competing – interests in order 
to formulate recommendations on the basis of what we believe can benefit 
the ICANN community as a whole. The GNSO improvements process is 
evolutionary and is intended to reflect the importance of the GNSO to 
ICANN and to build upon the GNSO’s successes to-date.
Next Steps:

This report has been submitted to the full Board Governance Committee 
(BGC) for its consideration, and is being posted for public information. 
If approved by the BGC, this report will be submitted for Board action 
after a public comment period. If approved by the Board, staff will be 
directed to develop an implementation plan in consultation with the 
community.
As the community and the Board consider the proposals outlined in the 
Report, it is important to keep in mind that this is an evolutionary 
process intended to reflect the importance of the GNSO to ICANN and to 
build upon the GNSO’s successes to date.
Background Documents
--
Glen de Saint Géry
GNSO Secretariat - ICANN
gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org
http://gnso.icann.org