[council] Draft reply Council on GNSO reform

Tim Ruiz tim at godaddy.com
Thu Nov 22 11:09:59 UTC 2007

Avri, I don't see representation and inclusiveness as separable.

Regarding WGs I think that stakeholder representation should be an
important measure of inclusiveness, and a critical measure of consensus.
I would hate to see the WG process become a gaming mechanism ruled by
shear numbers without regard to whether all stakeholder's views have
been given equal time and treatment, or have consensus measured simply
by numbers without regard to all stakeholder interests.

I believe the challenge the Council has as it defines the WG guidelines
is to not lose sight of the fact that there are very distinct interest
groups affected in various ways, good or bad, by ICANN policy. All of
these groups deserve to be included (represented) and the Council should
not allow one group to be completely drowned out by the shear numbers of


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [council] Draft reply Council on GNSO reform
From: Avri Doria <avri at psg.com>
Date: Wed, November 21, 2007 8:26 pm
To: Council GNSO <council at gnso.icann.org>


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