Re: [ga] Notes from LSE Call yesterday

[Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>]

These folks simply cannot grasp the concept of individual representation.
  e

"Michael D. Palage" <Michael@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
      Hello All:
   
  As I tried to note in my previously email to the GA List, I believe that the current review of the GNSO being undertaken by the LSE is critical toward improving the consensus process which is currently not working at an optimal level. Listed below are my personal notes from the call, please do not taken them as authoritative. It was stated that a full transcript would be available shortly, but given the importance of the LSE review process I thought it would be helpful for those that do not have 90 minutes to sit through the whole MP3 recording ( http://gnso-audio.icann.org/LSE-GNSO-20061003.mp3) to quickly glance at the topics of discussion.
   
  I hope people find this helpful.
   
  Best regards,
   
  Michael D. Palage
   
   
   
   
  Philip Sheppard from the BC served as chair of this teleconference.
   
  There was an initial 10-15 min presentation by LSE which primarily followed the outline set forth in their power point presentation availble here - http://www.gnso.icann.org/correspondence/LSE-03oct06.pdf
   
  Philip started the general discussion period by recognizing three general principles in the comments that he had seen.

  1) Recommendation #6 Direct Membership in ICANN:
   
    2) Recommendation #18 Pool of Expertise; and 
   
  3) Recommendation #19 on the simplification of ICANN's structure.

   
   
   
  Milton - If people are members of ICANN. Who controls access to those members.
   
  LSE - Have not investigated any SO outside of GNSO.  Each member would have to be partitioned into a constituency. 
   
  Tony Harris - Where will these stakeholder/members come from.
   
  LSE - Solution resources and funds from ICANN.
   
  Philip - Participation v Policy Development within ICANN. There is a bigger community of ICANN of which a subset would be members of these new constituencies.
   
  LSE - Would act as a gatekeeper for participation. 
   
  Tony Holmes -  Any thoughts on the criteria that would be set for each constituency, there is the potential for overlap.
   
  Tony Harris -  Same question
   
  Will Rodgers - With regard to getting new participants, ICANN web site not very use friendly.
   
  Philip - Problem of issue discussion becoming too specific, too quickly
   
  LSE - Concerning overlap. Members would have a choice of the categories when they join up to.  Need to make a choice.  New website potentially beneficial. 
   
  Milton - When you suggestion categories, - membership should be mutually exclusive. 
   
  LSE - If there are commercial interests. Think it would be straight forward criteria.
   
  Philip - Internal contradiction. Non-exclusion.
   
  Recommendation #19 - Simplification of Constituencies 
   
  Marie - About exclusion. How did you come to this conclusion.
   
  Milton - With tripartite constituency structure, good idea. One glaring problem. What is the point of 2 constituencies having 5, and civil society only have 3 members
   
  LSE - Milton's question first. Suggested size and make up of council many possibilities. 3 civil society and non-com seats would produce a balanced representation.
   
  Milton - Civil society consolidating ALAC and Non-Com is dangerous.
   
  LSE - Would not want to report to be construed as negatively commenting on NCUC. There are other ways of representing civil society interests.
   
  Marie - If there are experiences with other structures, where the policies are only binding on some participants.
   
  LSE - Looked at various organizations on policy making. ICC - Interviewed. The idea of organizations that joined at corporate level and then filter to the appropriate commission. Although formal structure for voting, voting was in frequent. In six years no vote had been taken. General pointers and ideas that were filtered in.
   
  ??? - The concern is on the level of agreement needed to reach consensus. Moving three to constituencies would help.
   
  Tony Homes - Question on Recommendation #19. Are we not pushing down the decision making process. Within the ISP, IP and BC there are different viewpoints. What is the benefit of this approach.
   
  Tony Harris - Question on Recommendation #20. Does not believe ISP, IP and BC are an inflexible block.  GNSO is dominated by the incumbents. Just take away weighted voting. Representatives to the GNSO are volunteers, reducing members would increase burden. We had this battle in the Evolution and Reform Process.
   
  Greg Ruth - Question of Recommendation #18 on simplifying Council to assist in reaching consensus. He believes non-com do not add to this goal. Three non-com members while shrinking council gives them increased balance. 
   
  Philip - Non-Com was to be a balancing force. May be fair question regarding their continued participation.
   
  LSE - Terms of Reference were limited. Did not look at nominating committee process. Thus three non-com members were outside of scope. 
   
  Philip - The central point of Recommendation #19 - is simplification of structure. Are other options available.
   
  LSE - Yes a suggestion of how things could be done. LSE tried to steer clear of comments regarding the removing of other constituencies. There has been rapid changes in these proposed constituency areas. 
   
  Tony Holmes - Concerned about driving the deliberations down the stakeholder grouping with the super constituency approach.
   
  Philip: Notes challenges in the Terms of Reference. BC noted problem of three constituency approach. Potential anti-trust concerns by grouping registries and registrars. Founding principles of business constituency is competition and choice, these are similar principles shared by civil society and NCUC.
   
  LSE:  Suggestion of single business constituency was based on numerous comments inside and outside of ICANN. Cross constituency meeting has worked well in bringing these groups (BC, ISP and IPC)together. There needs to be flexibility in how constituencies are set up. 
   
  Milton - Question regarding Recommendation 21 on raising consensus to 75%. Fails to see how raising the bar would help foster consensus. The Whois status quo is broken, however, raising the bar would make taking action impossible. Potential status quo problems with new TLDs also. 
   
  LSE - Good point. There is a lot of analysis behind this suggestion. There is no simple relation between consensus bar and how effect an organization works. The EU has a 72% bar. GNSO is a little more rancorous. Want to scale up the deliberative process of the council. There is a temptation to just get enough vote to win.
   
  Philip - EU interesting model, where no country wants to be seen on the losing side. The existing of a blocking minority.
   
  Avri - Procedural concern about all or nothing, as opposed to pick and chose among recommendations. What is LSE's view, is it a whole package, or just recommendations.
   
  Philip - Answered in second slide. concern about unraveling string.
   
  LSE - Some recommendations are "free standing" - i..e term limits. LSE is proposing an overall architecture with some principles.
   
  Philip - His third point regarding a pool of experts.
   
  LSE - Have looked at various models that have used experts. A little difficult for a body of the GNSO. That is why council members have dominated on some of the task forces.
   
  Philip - How are experts compensated.
   
  LSE - There is the capacity for GNSO to use paid experts particularly as ICANN's revenues grow.
   
  Philip - Recommendation on visibility, and the role of the GNSO chair. The possibility of GNSO Chair serving on the Board. Concern about timing commitments. Are there any other ideas?
   
  LSE - Terms of Reference constrained their refer. GNSO Chair plays a very important role. Not a clear institution recognition of that important role. Communication between GNSO and Board have been weakened. LSE has not reviewed the operation of the ICANN Board. The GNSO would be more easily understandable outside of the GNSO, to the broader Internet community. Need to clarify GNSO role.
   
  Tony Holmes - What would the role of a potential GNSO chair serving on the Board. Where is the obligation.
   
  LSE - Potentially serve as a liaison. Other option is to have chair circulate to board after chair term. Other potential solutions involves GNSO Chair working more closely with ICANN senior management.
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   


 		
---------------------------------
 All-new Yahoo! Mail - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster.