RE: [registrars] Terms of Reference for GNSO review

["Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hello Tim,

> Bruce, I have a question about scope. Some of the items seem 
> to indicate a review of the internal workings, bylaws, 
> practices, etc. of individual constituencies. Is that the intent?

Each supporting organisation (GNSO, ASO, ccNSO), each advisory committee
(ALAC, GAC, SSAC, RSAC etc), and the nominating committee is subject to
periodic review.

>From the ICANN bylaws (from Article IV, section 4, clause 1
http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#IV), 
the goal of the review shall be to determine 

(i) whether that organization has a continuing purpose in the ICANN
structure, 
and 
(ii) if so, whether any change in structure or operations is desirable
to improve its effectiveness. 

The GNSO is described in ARTICLE X: GENERIC NAMES SUPPORTING
ORGANIZATION of the bylaws: http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#X 

"The GNSO is responsible for developing and recommending to the ICANN
Board substantive policies relating to generic top-level domains."

"The GNSO shall consist of (i) various Constituencies representing
particular groups of stakeholders, as described in Section 5 of this
Article and (ii) a GNSO Council responsible for managing the policy
development process of the GNSO."

So the constituencies would be reviewed as a key part of the structure
of the GNSO.

The bylaws state that (Article X, section 5, clause 3):
"Each Constituency identified in paragraph 1 of this Section shall
maintain its recognition, and thus its ability to select GNSO Council
representatives, only so long as it in fact represents the interests
globally of the stakeholder communities it purports to represent, and
shall operate to the maximum extent feasible in an open and transparent
manner and consistent with procedures designed to ensure fairness."

Thus to answer your question, I think each constituency should be
reviewed to determine

(1) whether it in fact represents the interests globally of the
stakeholder communities it purports to represent,

And

(2) whether it operates in an open and transparent manner and consistent
with procedures designed to ensure fairness. 


Regards,
Bruce