<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Colleagues, in last
Wednesday's CPWG call, I offered the following suggestions with
respect to the comment on evolving the multistakeholder model:</font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">I grouped all 21
issues presented to us on the previous call inside 4 categories
-- explicitly recognizing that some of these things fit into
various categories.</font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">1. Structural issues
-- Wholistic view (20); Complexity (2); Roles and
responsibilities (15); Terms (21); Accountability (11);Transparency
(12)<br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">2. Process issues --
Precision in scoping (10); Prioritization (4); Efficient use of
resources (16); Work processes (19); Costs (13); Consensus (9);
Timing (1)<br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">3. Participation
issues -- Demographics (5); Recruitment (6); Representativeness
(7); Inclusiveness (8); Volunteer burnout (17) <br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">4. Intergroup
relations -- Cultural issues (13); Trust (14); Silos/tribalism
(18)</font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"> I then suggested that
we take each category and present our thoughts on how we can
address these issues -- paying attention to the fact that
addressing one group of issues will impact issues in other
groups. </font><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">This way of proceeding
seemed to meet the approval of those who were on the call. </font></font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">In continuation,
during the call, we focussed on the "low hanging fruit" here --
namely category 4: Intergroup relations -- i.e the perceived
lack of trust, tribalism and silos, etc. which can result in
stalled processes that can go on forever and eventually lead
nowhere or sometimes result in time consuming and unproductive
negative interactions between groups and/or individuals.<br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Here are some
suggestions offered for potential recommendations on how this
group of issues might be addressed:</font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">– that training in
multistakeholder processes be an important part of onboarding
activities<br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">– that consensus be
clearly defined and that all parties to a policy process commit
to the the goal of achieving consensus <br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">– that a culture of
trust be supported by consequences for publicly disparaging
other groups <br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">– a commitment by
ICANN to fully address the resource needs (both financial and
human resources) of volunteer groups working in the SO/AC
communities</font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">I have not yet had an
opportunity to go back to the recording of the call so not all
suggestions are reflected here. However, in the interests of
moving the process along (deadline June 4), please use the
suggestions offered here to begin a discussion on how we should
respond to this call for comments. <br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Thank you<br>
</font></p>
<p>Marita<br>
</p>
</body>
</html>