[council] Report on Proposed GNSO Improvements

[Denise Michel]

The Board Governance Committee's GNSO Review Working Group has issued a 
comprehensive proposal to improve the effectiveness of the GNSO, 
including its policy activities, structure, operations and 
communications. The GNSO Improvements Report, which has been issued for 
public comment and discussion and is posted at 
<http://icann.org/topics/gnso-improvements/gnso-improvements-report-15oct07.pdf> 
and summarized below, reflects the Working Group’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 Report will be discussed at the 29 October "GNSO Improvements 
Workshop" at ICANN's Los Angeles meeting (see 
<http://losangeles2007.icann.org/node/44> for more information).  The 
Working Group is chaired by Roberto Gaetano and includes Raimundo Beca, 
Vittorio Bertola, Susan Crawford, Tricia Drakes, Rita Rodin, and Vanda 
Scartezini.

Comments on the Report are encouraged and can be posted to 
<gnso-improvements at icann.org> and reviewed at 
<http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-improvements>.

Regards,
Denise

Denise Michel
Vice President, Policy Development
ICANN   www.icann.org
denise.michel at icann.org


SUMMARY OF THE REPORT OF THE BGC
GNSO REVIEW WORKING GROUP ON GNSO IMPROVEMENTS

***FOR DISCUSSION AND PUBLIC COMMENT ONLY***

The Board Governance Committee (BGC) created a working group, comprising 
current and former Board members, to oversee improvements to the Generic 
Supporting Names Organization (GNSO).  The purpose of the “BGC GNSO 
Review Working Group" (BGC WG) is to consider the 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 Report on GNSO Improvements (Report) summarizes our 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.  We have been 
guided by several key objectives, including (i) maximizing the ability 
for all interested stakeholders to participate in the GNSO’s processes; 
(ii) ensuring recommendations can be developed on gTLD “consensus 
policies” for Board review, and that the subject matter of “consensus 
policies” is clearly defined; (iii) 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 (iv) improving communications and 
administrative support for GNSO objectives.  Above all, we have sought 
ways to improve inclusiveness and representativeness in the GNSO’s work, 
while increasing its effectiveness and efficiency.  Our deliberations 
have achieved consensus on a comprehensive set of recommendations that 
addresses five main areas:

Adopting a Working Group Model:  A formalizing working group model 
should become the focal point for policy development and enhance the 
process by making it more inclusive and representative, and – ultimately 
– more effective and efficient.  This approach can be a more 
constructive way of establishing where agreement might lie than task 
forces, where discussion can be futile because the prospect of voting 
can polarize the group.  It also enables key parties to become involved 
in the beginning and work together to address complex or controversial 
issues.  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, bringing it in-line 
with the time and effort actually required to develop policy, and making 
it 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, 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 work 
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, as well as metrics for measuring success.

Restructuring the GNSO Council:  The Council needs to be moved away from 
being a legislative body heavily focused on 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 and the elimination of weighted voting.  We 
recommend a 19-person Council consisting of 16 members elected from four 
stakeholder groups, with two of these groups being “suppliers” and two 
being “users,” as follows:  registries, registrars, commercial 
registrants and non-commercial registrants.  In addition, 3 Councilors 
would be appointed by the Nominating Committee (pending that review). 
The precise names of the four stakeholder groups, exactly how the two 
“demand” groups might be defined and other issues regarding this 
configuration, are questions on which GNSO input will be particularly 
important before the Board makes a decision.  As the Council moves from 
being a legislative body to a strategic manager overseeing policy 
development, formal voting should be minimized.

Enhancing Constituencies:  Constituency procedures and operations should 
become more transparent, accountable and accessible.  The Council should 
develop participation rules and operating procedures for all 
constituencies for Board approval.  The criteria for participation in 
any ICANN constituency should be objective, standardized and clearly 
stated.  In addition, Staff should work with constituencies to develop 
global outreach programs aimed at increasing participation and interest 
in the GNSO policy process, including information on the option to 
self-form new constituencies.
Improving Coordination with ICANN Structures:  There should be more 
frequent contact and communication between the GNSO and members it 
elects to the Board, and among the Chairs of the GNSO, other Supporting 
Organizations (SOs) and Advisory Committees (ACs), especially before 
each ICANN Meeting.  The Council should also consider other ways to 
improve further GNSO 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 Report will be posted for public comment on the ICANN website and 
discussed at a Public Forum during the ICANN Meeting in Los Angeles 
before being presented to the Board.  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.