[council] AWOL and the reform proposals

Fri Nov 2 17:12:42 UTC 2007

I assumed that it would be up to us as stakeholder groups to work this
out and submit our proposals.  One of the challenges will be to develop
procedures for how we integrate new constituencies to stakeholder groups
and how that might affect election of Councilors.

Chuck Gomes

"This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to
which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged,
confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any
unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If
you have received this message in error, please notify sender
immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission." 

________________________________

	From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org
[mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
	Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 12:45 PM
	To: Council GNSO
	Subject: RE: [council] AWOL and the reform proposals

	Agreed. I think there are other clarifying questions that we
should ask as well. One I have is in regards to the selection of
Councilors from the stakeholder groups. There are differing views as
what is meant.

	One interpretation is that each of the stakeholder groups will
individually select four Councilors from among their respective group.
The other intrepretation is that the supplier stakeholder groups would
together select eight councilors, four from each group. The user
stakeholder groups would do the same. It is a subtle but important
difference.

	Of course the other possibility is that the BGC WG intended us
to figure out how that would work.

	I think any clarifying questions of this nature are necessary
prior to forming a Council response to the report.

	Tim 

		-------- Original Message --------
		Subject: RE: [council] AWOL and the reform proposals
		From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes at verisign.com>
		Date: Fri, November 02, 2007 11:24 am
		To: "Avri Doria" <avri at psg.com>, "Council GNSO"
		<council at gnso.icann.org>

		Avri,

		I did not assume such a restrictive role for the Council
under the proposed improvements, i.e., " the Council only being
responsible for process management".  I assumed that the Council's
responsibilities would include policy management in a broader sense than
just process management although I think the two areas are hard to
differentiate in some cases.  I fully agree with you that the policy
items you identified should be the responsibility of the Council under
the proposed model and would add to your examples the following:
ensuring that policy development work complies with Bylaws restrictions
defining consensus policy development (a change recommended in the
recommendations) or, if the work does not apply as possible consensus
policy development, making that clear to the working group in advance
and throughout th! e process as needed.

		When I made my public comments in the GNSO Improvements
Workshop on Monday, I made them with the above assumption.  That is why
I thought that there would still be good motivation to participate on
the Council.  If in fact, the BGC WG intended the more restrictive role
of the Council as you concluded, then I would have more empathy for the
concern about attracting qualified participants to the Council.

		It seems to me that it would be very good if you, as
chair, seek clarification from the BGC WG in this regard so that we know
whether or not there is a concern here that we should address or not.  

		Chuck Gomes

		"This message is intended for the use of the individual
or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is
privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable
law. Any unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify
sender immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission." 

________________________________

			From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org
[mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
			Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 10:14 AM
			To: Council GNSO
			Subject: Re: [council] AWOL and the reform
proposals

			Hi, 

			I sent the following in to the gnso-improvements
list during the meeting on Monday.

			a.

			----

			To the members of the committee:

			First I thank the working group for its efforts
and find myself in agreement with much of the report.

			While I agree that the GNSO Council should not
be a legislative body, I am concerned about scope in your definition of
"management." The report seems rather explicit in defining management
solely as responsibility for process. I think that the notion of
management needs to be expanded to include responsibility for Policy
management.

			I think the idea of the Council only being
responsible for process management is too limited. And while I accept
the arguments that this will make recruitment much more difficult, not
only among constituencies and stakeholder group, but within the Nomcom
process, I think that this is the lesser of the problems with this
approach.

			I support the idea of Working Groups, despite
the challenge involved in creating working groups that are of
sufficiently diverse and of manageable size. I think that the Council
needs to remain responsible for the policy activities and output of the
working groups. Not only do I think that councillors should be chosen as
stewards for these Working Groups, but I believe that the Council should
have a role in determining whether the policy recommendations are
compatible with ICANN mission and core value and other policy
recommendations. Beyond this there is a need to make sure that the
various policy recommendation are not seen individually but are seen in
the light of other policy processes and efforts. This does not mean that
the council should be able to reject the work of a working group because
it disagrees with the conclusions. It does mean that the council should
be able to return policy recommendations to the working group with
policy issues an! d concerns that it believes are not adequately dealt
with.

			I agree with the comment that Thomas Narten
made, it is critical for the council to have a voice in deciding whether
the policy recommendations of a working group are good for the Internet
community. To me, this means that the council must retain a policy
management role.

			Avri

			On 2 nov 2007, at 06.59, Philip Sheppard wrote:

				Fellow Council members,
				many apologies for missing the meetings
in LA this week but alas my duties as IPRA president intervened.
				And I was flying during our voting
meeting so could not dial-in without bankrupting the BC.

				Anyway, it seems that some good progress
was made on many issues (though I note not on the politically sensitive
issue of IGOs). 

				GNSO reform
				The reform proposals pose some
fundamental challenges to the heritage we guard known as the bottom-up
process.
				While we may differ in outcomes with
respect to constituency boundary changes, it may be productive to have
debate on some of the wider issues of the reform proposals.
				In particular it would be good to know
fellow Council members views on the objective that Council should manage
the PDP but not decide (if I may paraphrase).
				This objective is separate to its
implementation (eg work groups ) for which I see little need to debate
as we do them anyway when we believe they are right to do.

				But I am concerned that the objective
may weaken Council by diminishing the incentive for participation.

				It would be good to learn of opinions on
this.

				Philip 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20071102/54420b45/attachment.html>