Re: [ga] GNSO Improvements

["Jeffrey A. Williams" <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Glen and all,

  Sorry Glen, but we have seen this "Movie" before.  Same thing,
different day, again....  Or, a rose by any other name or color
smells the same, eh?  Another way of putting it was something
I heard years ago by a French diplomat in Paris referencing
"Ladies of the evening", "you can put lipstick on a pig, but it's
still a pig".  Ergo, these "Improvements" proposed may have some
lipstick, but their are still oinkers!

P.S.  FWIW, ICANN really needs to work on its PR routine,
this one is a smelly swine...  I guess we all should be thankful
it's warring lipstick!

Sad regards,

Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 277k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
   Abraham Lincoln

"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS.
div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail
jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
My Phone: 214-244-4827

"GNSO.SECRETARIAT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" wrote:

> [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