[council] Draft reply Council on GNSO reform

Avri Doria avri at psg.com
Thu Nov 22 02:26:50 UTC 2007


Thanks for getting this out so quickly.

A possible addition: While I am not sure that we have consensus on  
the details of proxy voting, might we want to mention that we do want  
a consideration of proxy voting with details to be worked out during  
the transition period?

Other points:

3.1  While I agree in principle with this, I am not sure that the  
general notion of  representation is necessarily the criteria I would  
emphasise.  I would prefer to talk about the appropriateness of the  
process and perhaps mention the possibility that sometimes a small  
invited team which is representative of the relevant stockholders  
would be a better choice.

3.2  I tend to think that putting a lot of  responsibility on the WG  
chair is a good thing.  Though I also think, as I mentioned in my  
personal statement to the BGWG-WG, that the Council retains an  
important management responsibility for these working groups and that  
in all cases at least one council member should be assigned to act as  
a representative steward for the WG and should should share the  
burden with the WG chair(s) with respective responsibilities.  I also  
think we need to design and document some standard guidelines for WGs  
that all WG chairs and participants can use and that we need to  
create a process for the council to provide an appeals function for  
disputes between WG participants and WG chairs.  I believe that for  
rough consensus to work, it must be possible to appeal the consensus  
call made by a chair.  In this case, I see this as a council  

Perhaps a reply like:

More thought is needed here, especially on the design of the WG  
process and on the responsibilities of the council, the chairs and  
the participants in a WG.  Discussions on these issues should be part  
of the transition process.

4.1b:  Again I agree with Supporting this but  I do not think that  
representativeness is the issue here.  If I understand the  
architecture they are proposing, the council is the locus for  
representation, while the WG is the locus for inclusion.  WGs are  
more inclusive, while the council will remain representative of the  
stakeholders and their interests.  I suggest removing the text on  
representativeness, but leaving the statement of support.

5.2  I think this is a critical point. I think it is important to  
emphasise that the council needs to be responsible for more then just  
process management but is responsible for policy management.  While  
this may not be a legislative function, i am not sure it is that now,  
it is certainly critical that the council not lose its ability to  
make policy recommendations and that it not be restricted to just  
passing on the work of the working groups.  At the very least the  
policy work of many WGs must be coordinated so as to not produce  
contradictory recommendations.  I wonder if we can't add something  
that says:

We think it is important that the policy management role of the  
council not be abrogated or diminished.

thanks again,


On 21 nov 2007, at 09.03, Philip Sheppard wrote:

> As agreed on yesterday's Council call, I promised to draft a short  
> paper as a "straw man" listing those recommendations on GNSO reform  
> that may be supportable by Council as a whole.
> Given the deadline is submission by 30 November I thought I'd  
> better get a move on.
> Not surprisingly those listed are ones seeking:
> - improvements in policy development and timeline flexibility,
> - improvements in communications,
> - improvements in outreach
> - greater support for constituencies.
> I have left out proposals on structural change suspecting we will  
> have differing views.
> On working groups, I am proposing a partial support, suspecting we  
> mostly feel they will work for much policy work, but that tying our  
> hands to have ONLY working groups for EVERY issue before us would  
> be too inflexible.
> I hope I have captured areas of potential agreement. Your first  
> comments please by November 25 after which time I'll edit a  
> proposed final version.
> Comments can be as simple as  - "yes I/we support" or can be  
> proposals to strike one of the proposed areas of agreement. In that  
> case, a word of explanation would be good to share.
> Philip <GNSO reply reform proposals 2007v1.doc>

More information about the council mailing list