[council] framing the discussion on SGs and role of the Council

[Mike O'Connor]

[  warning - long densely argued post follows  ]

Hi Avri,

conversation is inline, but just a quick note of thanks at the top to express my appreciation for the care you took in writing this reply.  

On Feb 6, 2014, at 1:06 AM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

> 
> On 05-Feb-14 18:43, Mike O'Connor wrote:
>> [snip]
>> 
>> OK - points of agreement (i’m really glad we agree on these two
>> fundamental points)
>> 
>> — we are not overseer of the whole GNSO
>> 
>> — the Council is overseer of the policy process
>> 
>> points of discussion
>> 
>>> — SGs are self-organizing, organized with a by-your-leave from the
>>> Board, without need of further oversight.
> 
>> i need convincing on that last bit -
> 
> Well, I can try to give my reasons for this belief. As for convincing
> you, my experience tells me  most people convince themselves if they are
> going to be convinced.  But maybe my arguments will be useful in your
> deliberations.
> 
>> there’s the possibility of trouble when there are functional
>> organizations that report to nobody, not even a coordinating body.
> 
> Basic for me in the definition of a bottom-up organization: the
> oversight of a group is by the group, as that is who they are
> accountable to.  Now by the group I don't necessarily mean the self
> selected folks who work in the SG or are (s)elected for roles, but
> rather the larger set of members (in the case of a GNSO SG or C,
> the appropriate population varies by group)

another point of agreement - options for group oversight can include “by the group itself.” 

i think that if the SG&Cs decide that they want more group oversight/coordination that their leaders are the people to make that request, not the Council. 

my main interest is the absence of coordination/supervision altogether.  i think there may be a bit of a vacuum in that area right now.  i’m very open to options as to how that vacuum might get filled, what that group looks like, how it’s formed, etc.  

> In ICANN we have an additional top-down wild card - the Board is
> oversight for everything except maybe the Ombudsman and AOC Review teams
> (a bottom-up oversight mechanism in itself)
> 
> From Bylaws X.2
> 
>> "Except as otherwise defined in these Bylaws, the four Stakeholder
>> Groups and the Constituencies will be responsible for defining
>> their own charters with the approval of their members and of the
>> ICANN Board of Directors."
> 
> 
> So that is 4 points of oversight:
> 
> Hard oversight - their word is law
> 
> - the group itself through means defined in its charter
> - the Structural Improvement Committee of the Board (SIC) that pretty much does what it feels needs to be done with
> the approval of the entire Board.
> 
> Soft oversight
> 
> - the Ombudsman - in the case of a complaint of unfairness
> - the ATRT - if SG/C issues or accountability and transparency were the
> topic selected by the ATRT based on the community's advice, as necessary
> to review in a particular cycle.
> 
> I find it hard to think of them as reporting to nobody.

that section is really helpful.  it’s causing me to shade my language a bit.

point of agreement — there are already several well-established mechanisms to provide oversight in the “review and correct past actions” or “regulatory supervision" sense of the word.  

> 
>> btw, none of these are do-or-die issues for me, i put them more in
>> the “opportunities lost” column.
> 
> Now, I believe in regulatory structures as much as the next person, but
> I do not see a need for yet further oversight.

agreed.

> 
> Where I do see a need is for the organization of cooperation.

also emphatically agreed and a much better set of words to describe the vacuum i’m interested in.  

to stretch the envelope, i would add the word “supervision” to the mix.  not in the “backward-looking regulatory oversight” sense, but in the “forward-looking leadership and accountability” sense.  

what appeals to me about both “organizing of cooperation” and “supervision” is that it provides a focal point for conversation and future action.  

here are a few examples of topics i would love to have ongoing planning and delivery of: 

- broadening/deepening the pool of participants in PDP process

- in an orderly and predictable way, provide assistance to participants as they seek to become more effective 

those topics dovetail nicely with some examples you pull in near the bottom of this post. they are also examples of activities that exist forever (we PDP people are “customers" of those activities btw).  it’s generally thought that the best way to provide ongoing functions is through some kind of “unit” of organization that provides ongoing coordination and leadership.  we the Council are a great example of such an ongoing function — my understanding of our focus is to provide ongoing coordination and leadership of the policy development process.

> 
> Cooperation can happen in many ways including by not limited to:
> 
> - ad hoc  - e.g. cooperation among SG reps to achieve a policy goal in
> the council
> 
> - self-organization  - something like the ccWG Ig, assuming it ever
> becomes real, where there was a decision on the part of some to attract
> the rest of the community to work on a particular issue and there are
> organizational aspirations.
> 
> -  top-down suggested/enforced - e.g. the GNSO that was told by the
> Board to figure out a solution to reorganizing the GNSO structure a few
> years back that resulted in a set of SIC requirements for Constituencies
> and Stakeholder Groups.

let me take your ideas through my distinction between “projects” (beginning, middle, end, celebration) and “functions” (ongoing things that have customers and/or clients).  i’d say that your first one would fall in the “project” category — they organize, the achieve their goal, they disband and head off to the next adventure.  the second one is also a project, but the *deliverable* of that project could be either a project (a CCWG) or a function (if the activity is something that will be ongoing).  the third one has several things going on at once.  there’s an ongoing function (the Board) giving direction to a body under its supervision.  there’s a project (a team) that’s formed by a subsidiary function (the Council) to figure out the best way to implement the request.  the upshot may be a project (if it’s a one-time thing) or a revision to a function (if the change is supposed to last for a long time).

so here’s a different framing of your “cooperation can happen in many ways” point

dimensions:

- formal vs informal — many times the ad hoc stuff may start out informal.  at some point along the line the group may decide that they need to formalize either into a team (project) or a function (unit)

- project vs function — see above and throughout


> 
>> 
>> — Council as service organization to SGs when they have common cause
>> to effect change beyond GNSO policy.  i also need convincing on this
>> one - can you point me at documentation that supports this role?
> 
> A thought or two occur to me on this.
> 
> I tend to think that a group that can help coordinate the efforts of
> the willing is of course always authorized to help the willing
> cooperate.  

this may be one that we need to work on some more.  the project-manager in me starts ringing “scope creep” alarm bells with this.  which in turn leads *me* to have a few more thoughts…

the charter of the Council isn’t nearly as detailed as the rigor we now demand for working groups.  that, i think, may be something we should fix.  we have really good documentation of the PDP, thanks in large part to you.  we have much better charters for working groups than we used to.  we also have much better charters for the SG/constituency functions.  but basically all we have as a charter for the Council are those few sentences in the Bylaws and, as we’ll see a little further on, i think there’s some imprecision in that language.


> To say that we need a document to tell us we may coordinate
> the goals of our SG and Cs when they consent, is difficult for me to
> understand.  I don't really understand needing to be convinced that
> helping people cooperate needs permission from some authority.

i think there are some situations where permission is less needed than others.  and it mostly has to do with resources and authority.  informal, short-term assistance - no problem, that should be willingly given if requested.  formal, long-term assistance i think needs a bit more consideration and support by the organizations from which we draw our authority (in addition to the consent by the SG&C’s).  my concern would be that we fill a vacuum that we shouldn’t, or don’t take sufficient time to think through the best way to fill a vacuum.  why the word “shouldn’t”?  because we the Council may not have the resources, bandwidth, skills, representation, or role that’s appropriate for the situation.  you and i share a certain crankiness when we conclude that the Board or the administration oversteps its authority — i’m just looking in the other direction.

> That is
> indeed another feature of a bottom-up organization - you are as
> organized as you decide to be (again with the caveat that having an
> authoritative Board does add a touch of the top down to make any
> analysis a bit more complex).  

yep. and here’s another complexity to ponder.  i’ve always made the distinction between the PDP (bottom up by design and desire) versus SG&C’s, AC/SO’s, the Board and the administration (which are not necessarily bottom up by design *or* desire).  all those other organizations are functional and they generally operate by more traditional hierarchy rather than the formal consensus process of the WGs.  i’m actually growing quite comfortable thinking about ICANN as a bottom up *policy* process that’s supported by a more traditionally organized set of volunteer and staff functions.  room for lots of debate here, clearly.

> Note I do not argue that the SGs could
> not come together and create an organizational framework - I would still
> argue against it for various reasons, but that would at least be a
> bottom-up process of self-aggregation and self-imposition of further
> oversight.  But, the fact that this could happen does not mean that the
> action of the council in regard to organizing cooperation are in any way
> limited by the by-laws now.

i have two quibbles with that last sentence.  a) i’m not sure that absence of limitation in the Bylaws is the same as encouragement or permission to do something and b) i don’t think we’re necessarily ready or able to organize that cooperation.  we could certainly become prepared to do that, but i don’t see a strong mandate for us in this area.

> 
> 
>> it seems quite different than my understanding of what we’re
>> supposed to do.
> 
> 
> We have some designated activities:
> 
> - managing policy process
> - electing seats 13 and 14 of the Board

yep

> 
> But the By-Laws X.9 do no limit the GNSO to those actions:
> 
>> 9. Except as otherwise specified in these Bylaws, Annex A hereto, or
>> the GNSO Operating Procedures, the default threshold to pass a GNSO
>> Council motion or other voting action requires a simple majority vote
>> of each House. The voting thresholds described below shall apply to
>> the following GNSO actions:
> 
> This is then followed by the complexity of PDP voting.  This indicates
> that the council is not barred from other activities.  They just haven't
> been specifically assigned.
> 
> If electing and policy management were the only activities the GNSO
> Council were permitted, then there would have been no need for this
> clause.  The fact that it exists indicates that the representatives of
> the SG and the community (i.e. the NCAs) may do things other than those
> that have specific voting threshholds.
> 
> While these activities are limited to the GNSO and gTLDs by the nature
> of ICANN organizational Architecture, there are no limitations put on
> the actions of the GNSO Council within these boundaries.
> 
> So, while I do not have evidence of a specific clause that the GNSO
> Council can help organize other activities according to the simple
> majority vote of the council, I believe I have shown evidence that the
> council MAY do more than just manage policy if the GNSO SGs, by a
> majority, decide to do so.  The only things we MUST do are Manage Policy and Elect Board members and a GNSO.
> 
> Also I would note that:
> 
> By-Laws x.3.4
> 
>> 4. The GNSO Council is responsible for managing the policy
>> development process of the GNSO.
> 
> Does not say:
> 
> 4. The GNSO Council is ONLY responsible for managing the policy
> development process of the GNSO and nothing more.

this gets me back to the need for clarifying the charter of the GNSO Council, and is the reason that i generally stick in a “Scope” section which includes both things that are "in scope" and things that are "out of scope."  the problem i run into with your interpretation is that gives the Council the authority to undertake pretty much anything it wants to as long as the activity is within the boundaries of the GNSO.  as i am generally quite cautious in my interpretation of scope statements, your view represents a big change to my understanding of our scope/authority.  i’m not necessarily violently opposed to your idea, i just don’t feel comfortable that the Council actually has that mandate or the capability to carry it out effectively.  room for lots of discussion here.

> 
> Further By-Laws X.5.5 says:
> 
>> Whenever the Board posts a petition or recommendation for a new
>> Constituency for public comment, the Board shall notify the GNSO
>> Council and the appropriate Stakeholder Group affected and shall
>> consider any response to that notification prior to taking action.
> 
> Why would the Board notify the Council of the creation of new
> Constituencies if it was not the case thatt the council of the GNSO, had a say in the GNSO as an organization.

this argument i think we need to slice really fine.  i can see how the framers of that sentence might have been thinking that the Council, as the manager of the policy-making process, would have valuable (policy-process-management) input on the impact of a new Constituency on that policy making process and a perspective that is quite different from the views of the existing constituencies (which are ongoing, functional and address other aspects of the GNSO).  it would be helpful if the people who’d written than sentence had been a little clearer on why they included the Council in that clause, but there’s my guess.  

> 
> Additionally By-Laws X.3.7 says:
> 
>> 7. The GNSO Council shall select the GNSO Chair for a term the GNSO
>> Council specifies, but not longer than one year.
> 
> Note, it says "the GNSO chair," not the "GNSO Council chair." The vice-chairs on the other hand are specifically referred to as "Vice-Chair of the whole of the GNSO Council”.

this is another finely-sliced argument.  i don’t want to put words in Jonathan’s mouth, but if i were in his shoes i would be reluctant to call myself the Chair of the GNSO and i would also be reluctant to take on that unified job without some really clear delegation of that authority from the SG&C leaders. so i put that down to sloppy drafting, and a slender reed on which to build a case.

> 
> So, why do I think the Council as a service group that should serve the GNSO in any way it needs? Because I guess I believe all those elected as volunteer leaders are volunteers in service.  So, to my mind, if the representatives of the SGs in the council decide, as determined by the by-laws, that they need for us to take on a task, I see support in the by-laws for us doing so.

i entirely agree with you that we are volunteers in service and i too am happy to help.  but i would like the SG&C leaders make that request of us.  i think we Councilors are elected to represent the SG&Cs in managing the policy making process. but we are not the leaders of the SG&Cs and all of the things in the GNSO that fall outside of the orderly flow and execution of the PDP.  i just took a look at the NCSG leadership page because i wanted to put your Chair’s name in here as an example.  the NCSG organization is a little hard for me to figure out — is Rafik the Chair?  anyway, Michele Neylon is the chair of the registrars, Keith Drazek is the chair of the registries, my chair is Tony Holmes, etc.  that is the group that i would like to see that request come from.   

[snip - closings and stuff]

> 
> Ps.  while looking a various bits of history, I ran into the following
> 
> http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/inactive/2012/improvements/restructure-working-group-en.htm
> http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/inactive/2012/improvements/restructure
> 
> 
> Representation
> 
>> a. All four stakeholder groups must strive to fulfill
>> pre-established objective criteria regarding broadening outreach and
>> deepening participation from a diverse range of participants.
>> 
>> b. All stakeholder groups must have rules and processes in place
>> that make it possible for any and all people and organizations
>> eligible for the stakeholder group to join, participate and be heard
>> regardless of their policy viewpoints.

yes!  one the very things that i’d like to see more juice behind — broader base.  the other thing i’d like to add to their pile, now speaking as a customer not as the boss, is “better mechanisms to prepare that base to be effective participants in the PDP process, especially working groups."

> 
> This is the recommendation that resulted from Report To ICANN Board of
> Directors From Working Group On GNSO Council Restructuring 25 July 2008.
> It recommended the structure we have now to the Board, which the Board
> essentially accepted.
> 
> This is to some extent, an example that may go against the first
> principle we agreed on - that the GNSO has no oversight over the GNSO
> itself.  In this case, the sub team of council members did indeed make
> recommendations with regard to the Stakeholder groups - it not only
> recommended a reorganization but made recommendations on details
> internal to those SGs.

let me reemphasize that “speaking as a customer” point i made just above — i am *entirely* comfortable with the Council turning back to the SG&Cs and saying “look, we need a broader and better-prepared pool of volunteers for the policy development process, how can we help?”  that doesn’t put us in charge, it just makes us more clearly state our need.

i draw a different conclusion from your example.  that was a sub team of a Council that had much broader authority and responsibilities than the one we sit on.  indeed, that was a Council where the councilors were both the leaders of their SG&Cs *and* carrying out the policy-Council job that we do.  to me, that was a really important part of the reform — breaking those two jobs apart.  so i agree that the Council of old had broader authority than we do.  i’m not so sure we can just take it back without consent from the leaders of the SG&Cs.  and i’m thinking that they recommended those changes of authority and responsibility really wisely — to broaden outreach.  what i’m lobbying for is that the SG&Cs may want to increase coordination amongst themselves to do that.

> 
> The more I work on this topic, the more I start to believe that if there
> is a need for further oversight of the whole GNSO, it would not be
> inappropriate or outside the bounds on what has gone before, for that to
> become a GNSO council task. I do not think this level of oversight
> is currently required, but I am always willing to reconsider.  I.e. I
> may be convincing myself that Point of Agreement 1 is based on weak
> arguments.

oh well.  :-)

back to you.

mikey


PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)