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

[Stéphane Van Gelder]

I have a concern about the sheer volume of renewal / restructuring processes
currently either under way or about to be launched.

I¹m worried that the time is rapidly approaching (if we¹re not already there
that is) where we as a community are spread too thin to engage in these
processes in a constructive and useful manner.

I don¹t think it¹s unfair to say that we tend to always see the same people
finding or volunteering their time to get involved. That being the case, I
find it unreasonable to have constant requests from the Board made to the
Council to initiate these processes, generally in extremely short
timeframes.

The net result, I fear, will be that although the quantity of restructuring
processes underway will be high, the quality will not.

Stéphane Van Gelder


Le 13/01/09 20:52, « Olga Cavalli » <olgac at fibertel.com.ar> a écrit :

> Avri,
> I think it is an interesting approach.
> I prefer:
>  
> Option b. 1 from each SG + an NCA = 5
>  
> I have a general concern about all these renewall / restructuring process, and
> it is how to motivate and interest participants outside the ICANN universe
> (Atlarge accredited organizations, existing constituencies, active involved
> individuals in the ICANN proces, etc.).
>  
> But this is not a question to be answered within this email, just wanted to
> share it.
>  
> Regards
> Olga
> 
>  
> 2009/1/13, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>:
>> 
>> 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.
>> 
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20090114/a973ce5b/attachment.html>