<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Re: [council] First thoughts on acting on BR 2008-12-11 02</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<FONT FACE="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:10pt'>I have a concern about the sheer volume of renewal / restructuring processes currently either under way or about to be launched.<BR>
<BR>
I’m worried that the time is rapidly approaching (if we’re not already there that is) where we as a community are spread too thin to engage in these processes in a constructive and useful manner.<BR>
<BR>
I don’t think it’s unfair to say that we tend to always see the same people finding or volunteering their time to get involved. That being the case, I find it unreasonable to have constant requests from the Board made to the Council to initiate these processes, generally in extremely short timeframes.<BR>
<BR>
The net result, I fear, will be that although the quantity of restructuring processes underway will be high, the quality will not.<BR>
<BR>
Stéphane Van Gelder<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Le 13/01/09 20:52, « Olga Cavalli » <<a href="olgac@fibertel.com.ar">olgac@fibertel.com.ar</a>> a écrit :<BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:10pt'>Avri,<BR>
I think it is an interesting approach.<BR>
I prefer:<BR>
<BR>
Option b. 1 from each SG + an NCA = 5<BR>
<BR>
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.).<BR>
<BR>
But this is not a question to be answered within this email, just wanted to share it.<BR>
<BR>
Regards<BR>
Olga<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
2009/1/13, Avri Doria <<a href="avri@acm.org">avri@acm.org</a>>: <BR>
</SPAN></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:10pt'><BR>
Hi,<BR>
<BR>
As was briefly mentioned at the last meeting, we need to do something about this.<BR>
<BR>
Board resoluion 2008-12-11-02<BR>
<BR>
"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"<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
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.<BR>
<BR>
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.<BR>
<BR>
I.e. Create a joint group of GNSO and ALAC representatives to spend 30 days coming up with a suggestion.<BR>
<BR>
Number of people:<BR>
<BR>
>From the GNSO we could have at<BR>
<BR>
Option a. 1 per constituency + an NCA = 7<BR>
Option b. 1 from each SG + an NCA = 5<BR>
<BR>
(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)<BR>
<BR>
>From ALAC there should be at least one from each region = 5<BR>
If we went with the 7 person model, not sure how they would pick the other 2.<BR>
<BR>
We should add a GAC observer as well.<BR>
<BR>
And we could ask (i.e. volunteer) Rob to coordinate. He handled the last such effort very well.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
As with the structuring group, they would be responsible for communicating with their constituencies/regional organizations/SGs and for coming to consensus.<BR>
<BR>
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<BR>
<BR>
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.<BR>
<BR>
Thoughts?<BR>
<BR>
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.<BR>
<BR>
a.<BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:10pt'><BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE>
</BODY>
</HTML>