[council] Draft reply Council on GNSO reform

Gomes, Chuck cgomes at verisign.com
Thu Nov 22 15:01:55 UTC 2007

Totally agree Tim.  I think you said this better than I did in a message
I just sent where I said, "while I believe we should always try to
maximize representativeness in the broadest sense possible, it is
particularly important to try to have representativeness of the most
impacted parties."

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." 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org 
> [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
> Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2007 6:10 AM
> To: Avri Doria
> Cc: Council GNSO
> Subject: RE: [council] Draft reply Council on GNSO reform
> 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 another.
> Tim 
> -------- 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>
> Hi,
> 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 responsibility.
> 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,
> a.
> 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