[council] Draft reply Council on GNSO reform
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?
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
We think it is important that the policy management role of the
council not be abrogated or diminished.
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