[council] Council restructuring
cgomes at verisign.com
Fri Nov 21 16:00:53 UTC 2008
I am not convinced that we cannot create a more definite plan while
still having the caveat that the plan is a living document. In that
regard, I inserted some comments below.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org
> [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard
> Sent: Friday, November 21, 2008 7:23 AM
> To: 'Council GNSO'
> Subject: [council] Council restructuring
> As agreed on yesterday's call here is a proposed response to
> the ICANN Board for its Dec 11 meeting regarding progress.
> The GNSO is pleased to report it is making substantial
> progress on GNSO reform issues.
> This progress is manifest at the Constituency level from both
> existing and in-formation constituencies who are working on
> the required changes.
> At the level of Council a structure has been adopted with two
> steering groups and underlying work teams to deal with the
> key operational and policy changes (reference).
> Staff have prepared a preliminary checklist of activities
> (attached) that is under discussion in Council with a view to
> adopting this checklist with the following changes:
> a) prioritisation
CG - Here are my thoughts regarding prioritization:
1) My understanding is that the plan due on 11 December is just for the
GNSO Council Restructure, i.e., the implementation of the bicameral
voting structure in the Council by June. This is a critical point of
understanding because I personally believe that the full implementation
of all the GNSO improvements recommended by the Board will take longer
than that. Therefore, the plan under discussion here should be separate
from the plans developed by the two steering committees and the working
teams they create. In my opinion, there are few if any reasons why the
bicameral structure cannot be implemented regardless of the progress of
the implementation of the other GNSO Improvements. Obviously, for the
impact of the changes to have maximum effect, the GNSO Improvement
recommendations must also be implemented, but if those take longer than
June, it would not limit the ability to implement the bicameral voting
structure because essentially we are just changing the makeup and voting
rights on the Council.
2) I also think that priorities will be basically determined by
3) The first and in my view the most important dependencies are the
tasks associated with the four Stakeholder Group organizations because
the new bicameral voting structure of the Council cannot happen if the
SGs are not functioning. Those tasks for each SG are as follows: i)
develop the charter; ii) obtain Board approval; iii) establish the SG;
iv) elect Council representatives.
3) The second, and I think less signficant dependencies involve the
tasks associated with certification of existing constituencies and
formation of new constituencies. These tasks include: i) preparing
certification documents; ii) obtaining Board approval; iii) implementing
any changes made. These obviously impact the SGs but I do not believe
that implementing the bicameral voting structure is totally dependent on
the full completion of constituency tasks. If constituencies, existing
or new, have not totally completed their work before June, interim
procedures could be put in place within the SGs to accommodate that. Of
course, it will be essential that SG charters are designed in a way to
handle that, but I think they will have to be designed that way anyway
to be able to accommodate constituency changes going forward including
the addition and deletion of constituencies and modifications within
4) The future SG and constituency members will have the primary
responsibility for performing the tasks in 2) and 3). The Council will
simply have and oversight and coordination role as well as a reporting
goal to the Board.
5) There are some other tasks that also have dependencies. For example
the ability to elect a Council chair will depend on the completion of
the task of developing a procedure for electing a chair if we do not
succeed in getting 60% approval by both houses.
6) In my opinion then, the priorities are:
i) develop, obtain approval and implement SG charters;
ii) ensure that constituencies complete their tasks sufficiently
enough to support the SG model;
iii) develop a procedure for electing a chair if we do not
succeed in getting 60% approval by both houses;
iv) ensure that the GNSO Rules of Procedure are revised to
accommodate the bicameral model before June;
v) develop a transition plan for the time from when the new
bicameral Council is seated until the chair and vice chairs are elected;
vi) seat Councilors in the bicameral Council;
vii) elect Chair and vice chairs.
Note that these are not sequential in all cases; some should happen in
> b) Interim transitional changes necessary to meet the June
> 2009 deadline to put in place an interim functional Council
CG - Between now and June, I am assuming that we will continue to
function under our current rules and procedures. Am I incorrect about
that? If I am correct on that, then we need to develop a transition
plan for the time from when the new bicameral Council is seated until
the chair and vice chairs are elected. In my opinion, that could be as
simple as asking the chair and vice chair that we are about to elect to
serve a little longer past June until the new officers are elected by
the bicameral Council.
> c) longer term changes necessary to fully implement the
> required reform.
CG - As I said above, I believe this for the most part should be
separate from the plan we need to submit on 11 December. There is at
least one item from the GNSO Improvements efforts that will have impact
on implementing the bicameral structure: revising GNSO Rules of
Procedure as needed. This task will likely be handled by a working team
to be formed by the OSC (GNSO Operations Working Team), so it seems
reasonable for the Council to ensure this task is completed before June.
> The Council will follow certain principles in this process:
> 1. Leadership elections will be de novo based on the
> enfranchised new interim body 2. Full outreach and bottom up
> discussion at each stage of transition.
> At present Council believes the June 2009 deadline is
> achievable but that will be ultimately determined by the
> cooperation and capacity of the GNSO's underlying volunteer
> bodies as well as staff resources. Council will inform the
> Board in due course if it believes there will be any slippage
> in this aspiration.
CG - I think the plan to be submitted on 11 December, should have
estimated target start and completion dates for each of the prioitized
tasks and any subtasks as possible.
More information about the council