[council] Additional agenda item for the Council call on 16 Nov - regarding IDN working group

Sophia B sophiabekele at gmail.com
Thu Nov 16 18:29:03 UTC 2006


Dear All,

Kindly consider this as my two cents on this matter:

1- I am concerned also on Bruce's mention on lack of 'public call' etc, that
we may need to do before moving forward with the election.
2- I support the clarification of 'clearly defining the charter'  and the
rules of membership of the WG.
3- Therefore I would propose to clarify such before election of chair.
4- If we have to elect the chair now, I would not mind Bruce's earlier
proposal and Mawaki's to elect a joint chair.

Bruce, as the chair, I would appreciate that you convey this message in the
council meeing today.  Unfortunately, I cannot be on today's call due to
urgent matter I have to attend to.

Many thanks.
Sophia


On 15/11/06, Mawaki Chango <ki_chango at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Marilyn,
>
> A few comments inline as follows.
>
> --- Marilyn Cade <marilynscade at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I am speaking as a individual BC rep.
>
> <snip>
> >
> > Discussion :
> >
> >
> > Are we making this too complicated, and overlooking the purpose of
> > the WG,
> > or misunderstanding it, or trying to make it more than it is?
> >
> >
> > I think we have a working group already agreed, and an election
> > underway.
>
> I'm assuming here that you're just talking about us agreeing to set
> up a WG, not that the WG as actually formed has been agreed on.
>
> >
> > I would support the Council discussing asking the working group and
> > elected
> > chair to undertake how to and whether to expand the working group,
> > what
> > would be the purpose, etc. and whether the working group can use
> > methods to
> > keep broader groups of interested and relevant individuals or
> > entities
> > informed, such as through transcribing working conf. calls, et,
> > maintaining
> > a public mailing list that members and others can post to, etc.
>
> You see Marilyn, it's not just about informing people one-way; it
> might be that we need their insight, too, and even their expertise on
> some issues we seem to disqualify in advance.
>
> >
> > This is a working group launched by Council for a purpose and is
> > therefore
> > not actually the 'old' working group model, as I see it.
> >
> >
> > I do not want Council to lose sight of its own responsibilities for
> > further
> > discussion of policies of relevance to IDNs and find the working
> > group a
> > diversion from Council's overall responsibilities.
>
> You might be right here, but that precisely requests that we are
> clear about the role and the scope of the WG - in other words, its
> mandate, rules and procedures. Failing us to have been explicit on
> those, everyone's understanding might carry specific assumptions that
> are not necessarily shared by the others.
>
> It seems to me
> > that we
> > may be getting a little diverted into confusion about the role of
> > the
> > Working Group. And perhaps missing some points about the work at
> > hand for
> > the group.
> >
> <snip>
> >
> >
> > Changing the election in process: I cannot support changing the
> > election
> > process. And, further, I have not see a consensus emerging that
> > there should
> > be any change in the election cycle underway.
> >
> > The election was opened, and undoubtedly many have voted. I have
> > voted.
>
> I haven't, and probably won't in the present confusion.
>
> >
> > I am not aware that elections, once started, can be stopped, unless
> > there is
> > some kind of technical problem with the election, failure in the
> > systems,
>
> Elections can be stopped for problems other than technical, problems
> that may be even more important for legitimacy purpose (than the
> technical ones often would be.)
> Regards,
>
> Mawaki
>
> > etc. so I'm not in support of changing the decision to have an
> > election
> > after having an announcement of an election; getting two candidates
> > nominated and seconded, and then opening the election.
> >
> >
> >
> > Once the Working Group has a chair, it can meet and it can take
> > into account
> > the input and guidance from Council and relevant other inputs on
> > how it does
> > its work, including but not limited to whether working methods are
> > sufficient to ensure participation and feedback from other groups
> > or other
> > parties into its work, or whether expansion of membership is
> > appropriate.
> > The Working Group could be asked to report back to the Council in
> > Sao Paolo
> > on ideas about membership and participation. Given the diversity of
> > the
> > Working Group as present, I believe that a balanced and pragmatic,
> > and
> > responsible set of ideas can be quickly put forward by the Working
> > Group.
> >
> >
> >
> > First and foremost, can we all keep in mind that this is only ONE
> > effort,
> > and does not replace the work of the Council, the need to discuss
> > policy
> > more at the Council level, and with the focus on understanding the
> > working
> > group in the larger context.
> >
> >
> >
> > I fear that it is easy to confuse the Working group as something
> > magical. I
> > think it has some hard work to do, but nothing magical. :-)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org
> > [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On
> > Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin
> > Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 9:02 PM
> > To: Council GNSO
> > Cc: rmohan at afilias.info
> > Subject: [council] Additional agenda item for the Council call on
> > 16 Nov -
> > regarding IDN working group
> >
> >
> >
> > Hello All,
> >
> >
> >
> > I would like to add an additional agenda item regarding the GNSO
> > IDN
> >
> > working group.
> >
> >
> >
> > As you know, I chaired the original working group on the assumption
> > that
> >
> > the working group had a very short life.
> >
> >
> >
> > Based on the last Council meetings decision to re-instate the
> > working
> >
> > group with no specific time limit, I wanted to hand over the chair
> > to
> >
> > another person.  There have been two candidates that have been
> > nominated
> >
> > by committee members - Ram Mohan and Sophia Bekele.   I have thus
> >
> > initiated an email election process based on the existing
> > membership of
> >
> > the working group to put a new chair in place.
> >
> >
> >
> > There are however outstanding issues:
> >
> > - clearly defining the charter of the working group
> >
> > - clarifying the rules for membership
> >
> >
> >
> > I have received some requests from people in the ICANN community
> > that
> >
> > are currently not members of a GNSO constituency, but are members
> > of the
> >
> > general assembly mailing list.   So far I have been recommending
> > that
> >
> > these people join one of the existing GNSO constituencies to meet
> > the
> >
> > requirement of a "GNSO volunteer"   I have since noticed that the
> >
> > current definition of a working group in:
> >
> > http://www.gnso.icann.org/council/names-proceduresv7.shtml opens up
> >
> > membership to "members of the General Assembly (GA) defined as
> >
> > subscribers to the ga at dnso.org, announce at dnso.org or the GA voting
> >
> > register".     I am not sure if this is the Council's intent.
> >
> >
> >
> > The working group is attracting plenty of interest, but my concern
> > is
> >
> > that without a clear charter that we are setting false expectations
> >
> > regarding the purpose of this working group.   We also need to
> > clearly
> >
> > establish the working group in the context of the President's
> > Advisory
> >
> > Committee, the ccNSO working group, and the new gTLD committee.
> >
> >
> >
> > It has also been noted that perhaps we should hold off on electing
> > a
> >
> > chair until the above is clearer, and we have done a public call
> > for
> >
> > members etc.
> >
> >
> >
> > One alternative is that we continue with the current election and
> > with
> >
> > the current group of members, and that the elected chair work with
> > the
> >
> > group to finalise a charter and submit that to the GNSO Council for
> >
> > approval.   I don't personally have the time to do that, hence my
> >
> > interest in handing over responsibility to someone else.   We could
> >
> > limit the "initial" term of the chair to three months, and then if
> > the
> >
> > working group is still operational, we could hold a follow up
> > election.
> >
> > Alternatively if the two candidates are willing, we could simply
> > suggest
> >
> > they be appointed as joint chairs for the purpose of moving the
> > work
> >
> > forward.
> >
> >
> >
> > I am interested in ideas on further thoughts via the mailing list,
> > and
> >
> > discussion on the way forward at the next Council meeting on 16
> > Nov.
> >
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Bruce Tonkin
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20061116/867de238/attachment.html>


More information about the council mailing list