[council] RE: GNSO Review

[Marilyn Cade]

The constituency model grew out of the community's work within the IFWP and
many informal and probably a mix of recorded/summarized and unrecorded
discussions. 

The DNSO bylaws were drafted as a consensus approach, with input from many;
the constituency model grew up as a means to create balance across diverse
and often competing interests. Many other models were considered, and for
many reasons, we "evolved" to this model.  And, then we evolved this model
through the ERC process, with several critical changes. 

CIX and ITAA in the US, and other organizations in other countries provided
in kind staff support to help to do actual drafting on the bylaws.  There
were many many contributions and many edits. Some will be recorded; many
will not. It was not always possible to provide full recording of the
working sessions. 

The business entities, and associations in the US and Europe and ISP
associations in Europe and Latin America and Japan were heavily engaged in
this process; as were others... some of whom are in different roles today
within ICANN. 

It is important to know where we have been in order to know where we can
go.....  One has to remember that sudden, abrupt and unannounced change is
usually alienating, of course. Which is why the changes to date have tried
to take an evolutionary approach, rather than a revolutionary approach.    


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On
Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin
Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2005 7:06 PM
To: council at gnso.icann.org
Subject: RE: [council] RE: GNSO Review

Hello Grant,
 

> I think it is crucial that in gathering data, asking questions,
analysing and 
> making recommendations, that this is done in a clear and agreed
understanding of 
> the purpose of the GNSO given ICANN's mission, core values (eg bottom
up, 
> consensus based policy development) and commitments (eg MOU). 

I agree that it will be important to have a clear statement of the
GNSO's purpose, and perhaps some examples of what has been done within
that purpose to set the background when asking review questions.

While I suspect that members of individual constituencies may understand
the purpose of their own constituency - they may not understand the
wider context within which the constituency operates.   When you talk to
people outside of the GNSO constituencies the level of understanding is
probably even lower.

I would suggest that the relevant section of the current bylaws be
summarised, and perhaps it would also be useful to retrieve material
from the formation of ICANN where the constituency structure was first
proposed.   The most recent ICANN reform process that occurred a few
years ago - was more focused on the structure of the Board, and
structure of the Councils, but did not delve down into the
structure/efficiencies of the constituencies themselves - so much of the
thoughts that led to the formation of the original constituencies (and
there have been no changes in the number of constituencies) probably
dates back to early documents in the formation of ICANN.   Some members
of Council may be able to assist by providing references to the Council
list of appropriate documents.

Regards,
Bruce Tonkin