[registrars] Terms of Reference for GNSO review

[Tim Ruiz]

Ross, I agree with your analysis. Regarding page 4, "Effectiveness" you
wrote:

- - regarding an examination of the benefit to all affected parties of
the
use of ICANN time and resource in developing policy positions. It is
unclear what aspect of ICANN this question is probing. ICANN Staff?
Community? GNSO? Board? This should be clarified.

It should also include examination of the effectiveness of the GNSO
Staff Manager and the administrative and operational support provided
by ICANN per Article X. Section 4.1. and 4.2.

Bruce, I have a question about scope. Some of the items seem to indicate
a review of the internal workings, bylaws, practices, etc. of individual
constituencies. Is that the intent?

Tim


 
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [registrars] Terms of Reference for GNSO review
From: Ross Rader <ross at tucows.com>
Date: Mon, August 22, 2005 3:25 pm
To: Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>
Cc: registrars at dnso.org

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


>> Please review the attached document produced by Dr Liz Williams based on
>> discussions with members of the ICANN community and let me know if you
>> have any comments/suggestions.  The document will be discussed on a GNSO
>> Council teleconference later this week.



Bruce -

I have some preliminary questions and concerns that I've documented
below. I'm presenting this list as a representative of Tucows. As a
council member, I would also appreciate hearing more from the
constituency prior to the call.

Comments:

page 3, "Representativeness"

- - regarding whether or not there are barriers to the participation all
who are willing to contribute to the work of the GNSO. This should be
clarified to specify "inappropriate barriers". The registrar
constituency, for instance, has a set of bylaws that limits membership
to accredited registrars. It would be inappropriate if the GNSO had this
same limitation (although it would be much easier to get problems solved
;)

- - regarding whether the ICANN community is satisfied with the policy
advice it receives from the GNSO. This needs to be amended to question
whether the ICANN Board is satisfied with the policy recommendations it
receives from the GNSO. As you know, the GNSO doesn't provide policy
outside of the PDP, of which the board is the sole recipient.

- - regarding whether other supporting organizations and advisory
committees have effective opportunities to participate in the policy
development process. This question may be more useful if we seek to
discover perceptions by asking in a modified format if these other
bodies "believe they have an effective opportunity to participate...".
While somewhat unquantifiable, it will likely uncover additional ways
that we can accomodate the unique requirements of these groups in our
processes.

page 3, "Authority"

- - regarding whether the GNSO Council Bylaws need amending in any way.
The answer to this question should come as one of the possible results
of this review. It is unclear what we seek to discover by simply asking
whether or not the bylaws need to be amended and therefore, the question
should either be made more specific or probably more appropriately, just
removed entirely.

page 4, "Authority"

- - regarding whether there is fairness within the constituencies. This
is
a very soft and subjective question. It would be useful to define what
is intended by the term "fairness" or undertake a more detailed
examination of the constituencies and there processes to ensure that the
question is done justice.

- - regarding whether weighted voting skews policy outcomes. Of course
it
does. This is why it was implemented. This question should be replaced
with one that attempts to discover if the objectives behind weighted
voting are being met and whether or not adjustments to the weighting
should be made.

- - regarding an examination of the appropriateness and effectiveness of
the relationships between ICANN staff and the constituencies. This
should be expanded to include the relationships between ICANN staff and
the council, ICANN board and the council and ICANN board and the
constituencies.

page 4, "Effectiveness"

- - regarding an examination of the benefit to all affected parties of
the
use of ICANN time and resource in developing policy positions. It is
unclear what aspect of ICANN this question is probing. ICANN Staff?
Community? GNSO? Board? This should be clarified.

- - regarding whether or not the PDP process should be amended. Again,
as
with the bylaws amendments, these answers should come as a result of
this process.

- - regarding whether an analysis is required about whether ICANN is
satisfied with the advice it receives from the constituencies. This
question does not reflect GNSO processes. It should be clarified to
state whether or not the ICANN Board is satisfied with the policy
recommendations it receives from the Council and possibly expanded to
include a question asking whether or not the Council is satisfied with
the participation that it sees from the constituencies.

page 4, "Transparency"

- - regarding whether policy decisions are made in a way which
demonstrates that participants are accountable to the Internet
community. This question needs to be clarified to adequately define the
term "accountable". Policy decisions are made by ICANN's board. To the
extent that the GNSO participants assist in developing recommedations
for the board, they typically represent specific interests or entities
within the process - not the internet community in general. Generally
speaking, this is done with the intent of improving the policies by
which we pursue ICANN's mandate, but it is unclear that the GNSO has a
specific accountability to the general internet community.

Further, this question seeks answers regarding the use of "statements of
interest". This is a new term to me. The author should define what
specific process or instrument they are referring to.

page 5, "Quantifying Representativeness, Authority, Effectiveness &
Transparency"

- - regarding measuring these concepts objectively and subjectively.
Small
clarification - the comparisons described should be made against other
*similar* organizations.

- - regarding the examination of the PDP. Additional measurement of
actual
process output should be contemplated, specifically, impact and
effectiveness of implemented policies and so on.

page 5, "Capturing and Mapping Perceptions"

- - regarding interpretation and examination of the use of concepts used
in the Bylaws. This question should specify where the application of
these concepts will be measure (i.e. w/ in constituency processes, w/ in
council processes, w/ in the GNSO as a whole, etc.)

Please let me know if I need to clarify any this for you.

Thanks again,

- --






                     -rwr



Contact info: http://www.blogware.com/profiles/ross
Skydasher: A great way to start your day
My weblog: http://www.byte.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3-nr1 (Windows XP)

iD8DBQFDCjTT6sL06XjirooRAv80AJ0S6MouKRUjsBCCPsg+6n+F8lofpwCfVOI+
DT5mQDxdA2Suo1HVgAfnqrQ=
=nGdg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----