[council] First thoughts on acting on BR 2008-12-11 02

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

As was briefly mentioned at the last meeting, we need to do something  
about this.

Board resoluion 2008-12-11-02

"that members of the GNSO community work with members of the ALAC/At- 
Large community and representatives of potential new "non-commercial"  
constituencies to jointly develop a recommendation for the composition  
and organizational structure of a Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group  
that does not duplicate the ALAC and its supporting structures, yet  
ensures that the gTLD interests of individual Internet users"


The following is an idea that has been discussed between the chair of  
ALAC and myself and vetted a little with relevant staff.  I understand  
she has taken the proposal to the ALAC (I thought we were going to  
talk about it some more first, but never mind) and I am now bringing  
it to the council.

Given the pressure of time, we could use a model similar to the one  
developed by the board to force the GNSO constituencies to action on  
restructuring.

I.e. Create a joint group of GNSO and ALAC representatives to spend 30  
days coming up with a suggestion.

Number of people:

 From the GNSO we could have at

Option  a. 1 per constituency + an NCA = 7
Option b. 1 from each SG + an NCA = 5

(given were we are heading with the restructuring it might be  
interesting to try that model.  note this is not council members but  
constituency/SG members)

 From ALAC there should be at least one from each region = 5
If we went with the 7 person model, not sure how they would pick the  
other 2.

We should add a GAC observer as well.

And we could ask (i.e. volunteer) Rob to coordinate.  He handled the  
last such effort very well.


As with the structuring group, they would be responsible for  
communicating with their constituencies/regional organizations/SGs and  
for coming to consensus.

The recommendation would then be subject to public review and then  
subject to approval  by both the GNSO Council and ALAC using their own  
methods

This would take longer then board motion requested, but we could at  
least give them a plan and a schedule.  I figure it would take minimum  
8 weeks from Time 0.  If we act quickly, we could be ready for open  
discussions in Mexico City, with the comment period ending a week  
after that meeting.  Allowing for a decsions shortly thereafter.

Thoughts?

Note: One possible objection is that this discussion is relevant only  
to the NCSG and not to the rest of the GNSO community and thus there  
is no role for the rest of the GNSO community or for the GNSO council  
in this process.    I can certainly see the logic of his view and  
accept it if it is the predominant view in the council.  I do,  
however, feel obliged to make sure we have responded to the Board  
motion, and hence the proposal and the discussion.

a.