Re: [ga] Public Forum on GNSO Improvements

[Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>]

Jeff,
   
  'Thanks for the question. I thought there was some type of particpation.
   
  And thanks to Denise Michel We know that; Yes, there is a way to participate in Monday's forum on GNSO improvements.  Individuals and stakeholder groups are encouraged to 
submit views on LSE recommendations and GNSO improvements in advance of 
the forum to <gnso-improvements@xxxxxxxxx> (this note is highlighted in 
the forum announcement, which is linked to this event on the Lisbon 
meeting page <http://icann.org/meetings/lisbon/>.  The forum will be 
webcast.

  Eric


Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
  Dr. Dierker and all,

I agree. This is only 4 days away. There is seemingly no means by
which written input for this specific "Public Forum on GNSO
Improvements".
Why isn't there? Glen, Denise?

Hugh Dierker wrote:

> I am not so sure that speed of response is always such a good thing.
> I know the situation of Registryfly makes one want rapid response, and
> perhaps it can be divided between rapid temporary and cautious long
> term. (like courts with temporary and permanet injunctive relief).
>
> But clearly this is another area where the GA should participate and
> self organize an appropriate position paper.
>
> Eric
>
> "GNSO.SECRETARIAT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" 
> wrote:
> [To: ga[at]gnso.icann.org; announce[at]gnso.icann.org]
>
> FYI
>
>
> Dear Council and constituency members,
>
> Your participation in the 'Public Forum on GNSO Improvements'
> scheduled
> for Monday, 26 March, 16:00 - 18:00, in Lisbon is strongly encouraged.
>
>
>
> The Board Governance Committee (BGC) is hosting this forum to
> encourage
> additional public input and discussion on the LSE review and
> improvements to the GNSO's structures and processes. While input on
> all
> elements of the GNSO and the LSE review report are open for comment at
>
> the forum, the Committee is particularly interested in hearing your
> views on the GNSO review recommendations listed below. (Note that
> questions raised about the recommendations listed below are included
> to
> prompt thought and discussion, and are not intended to represent the
> views of the BGC or its members).
>
> *Individuals and stakeholder groups are encouraged to submit views on
> these and other recommendations in advance of the forum to
> . Authors of emailed input will be given an
> opportunity to present their views prior to opening the forum to
> comments from the floor.*
>
> o Structural Changes to GNSO Constituencies -- LSE recommendation 19.
> Simplify the GNSO constituency structure in order to respond to rapid
> changes in the Internet, including by substituting 3 larger
> constituency
> groups representing Registration interests, Business, and Civil
> Society;
> LSE recommendation 18. Create a category of 'Associate Stakeholder' to
>
> establish a pool of available external expertise.
>
> - Which entities and individuals should participate in the GNSO
> process,
> and what will motivate them to want to join? The six current groups
> are
> the natural point to begin discussion. Do they represent the right
> groups? Are they over or under inclusive? The Bylaws acknowledge that
> the optimal groupings may be different than the ones that now exist,
> and
> that there is no "magic number." The LSE points out several problems
> with the current structure and suggests the substitution of three
> larger
> constituencies ? is this the right answer?
>
> - Is it feasible to create a roster of readily available experts who
> can
> assist with task forces and other aspects of the PDP?
>
> - What other questions and approaches should the BGC explore regarding
>
> these two LSE recommendations?
>
> o Changes to the Policy Development Process -- LSE recommendation 17.
> Make greater use of task forces [in policy development processes]; LSE
>
> recommendation 23. Revise and move PDP operational provisions from
> Bylaws to more flexible GNSO 'Rules of Procedures.'
>
> - Could greater use of task forces, particularly proposals to attract
> more expertise and geographical diversity, help the policy development
>
> process? Would limiting the number of Councilors on any task force
> enable the Council to focus more on the task of managing PDPs, rather
> than the substantive aspects of formulating specific policies? Would
> this change increase the number of people willing to serve on the
> Council?
>
> - There seems to be widespread agreement that the Bylaws are overly
> prescriptive, and the prescribed PDP steps and timelines have not
> captured the requirements of a policy development process. Should the
> PDP principles be preserved in the Bylaws while placing more
> procedural
> elements in GNSO 'rules of procedure'? Do you have specific
> suggestions
> for how the PDP should be revised?
>
> - What other questions and approaches should the BGC explore regarding
>
> these two LSE recommendations?
>
> o Changes to Voting and Representation -- LSE recommendation 21.
> Increase the threshold for establishing consensus to 75% and abolish
> weighted voting; LSE recommendation 20. Make the Council smaller (16
> members suggested).
>
> - How would raising the consensus threshold and abolishing weighted
> voting advance the role of the GNSO? The Bylaws task the GNSO with
> both
> "developing and recommending" gTLD policies to the Board.
>
> - Weighted voting, in particular, was instituted as part of ICANN's
> Evolution and Reform Process to address the different effect policies
> have on contracted versus non-contracted constituencies. Has this
> approach contributed to, or hampered, effective policy development?
>
> - What other questions and approaches should the BGC explore regarding
>
> these two LSE recommendations?
>
>
> (Please share this announcement with your constituency members and
> other
> interested parties.)
>
> Regards,
>
> Denise Michel
> Vice President, Policy Development
> ICANN
> denise.michel@xxxxxxxxx
>
>
> --
> Glen de Saint Géry
> GNSO Secretariat - ICANN
> gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org
> http://gnso.icann.org

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obediance 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
Registered Email addr with the USPS
Contact Number: 214-244-4827




 
---------------------------------
8:00? 8:25? 8:40?  Find a flick in no time
 with theYahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut.