[council] First thoughts on acting on BR 2008-12-11 02

[Olga Cavalli]

Avri,
I think it is an interesting approach.
I prefer:

Option b. 1 from each SG + an NCA = 5

I have a general concern about all these renewall / restructuring process,
and it is how to motivate and interest participants outside the ICANN
universe (Atlarge accredited organizations, existing constituencies, active
involved individuals in the ICANN proces, etc.).

But this is not a question to be answered within this email, just wanted to
share it.

Regards
Olga


2009/1/13, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>:
>
>
> Hi,
>
> As was briefly mentioned at the last meeting, we need to do something about
> this.
>
> Board resoluion 2008-12-11-02
>
> "that members of the GNSO community work with members of the ALAC/At-Large
> community and representatives of potential new "non-commercial"
> constituencies to jointly develop a recommendation for the composition and
> organizational structure of a Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group that does not
> duplicate the ALAC and its supporting structures, yet ensures that the gTLD
> interests of individual Internet users"
>
>
> The following is an idea that has been discussed between the chair of ALAC
> and myself and vetted a little with relevant staff.  I understand she has
> taken the proposal to the ALAC (I thought we were going to talk about it
> some more first, but never mind) and I am now bringing it to the council.
>
> Given the pressure of time, we could use a model similar to the one
> developed by the board to force the GNSO constituencies to action on
> restructuring.
>
> I.e. Create a joint group of GNSO and ALAC representatives to spend 30 days
> coming up with a suggestion.
>
> Number of people:
>
> From the GNSO we could have at
>
> Option  a. 1 per constituency + an NCA = 7
> Option b. 1 from each SG + an NCA = 5
>
> (given were we are heading with the restructuring it might be interesting
> to try that model.  note this is not council members but constituency/SG
> members)
>
> From ALAC there should be at least one from each region = 5
> If we went with the 7 person model, not sure how they would pick the other
> 2.
>
> We should add a GAC observer as well.
>
> And we could ask (i.e. volunteer) Rob to coordinate.  He handled the last
> such effort very well.
>
>
> As with the structuring group, they would be responsible for communicating
> with their constituencies/regional organizations/SGs and for coming to
> consensus.
>
> The recommendation would then be subject to public review and then subject
> to approval  by both the GNSO Council and ALAC using their own methods
>
> This would take longer then board motion requested, but we could at least
> give them a plan and a schedule.  I figure it would take minimum 8 weeks
> from Time 0.  If we act quickly, we could be ready for open discussions in
> Mexico City, with the comment period ending a week after that meeting.
>  Allowing for a decsions shortly thereafter.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Note: One possible objection is that this discussion is relevant only to
> the NCSG and not to the rest of the GNSO community and thus there is no role
> for the rest of the GNSO community or for the GNSO council in this process.
>    I can certainly see the logic of his view and accept it if it is the
> predominant view in the council.  I do, however, feel obliged to make sure
> we have responded to the Board motion, and hence the proposal and the
> discussion.
>
> a.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20090113/fbe06702/attachment.html>