August 2005 - council - lists.icann.org

RE: [council] GNSO Review: Council Meeting Thursday 25 August, 1 2:00 UTC
by Bruce Tonkin Aug. 25, 2005

Aug. 25, 2005

> In response to point 2 below, please find attached the Board paper on the GNSO review. Thanks Maria. Regards, Bruce

2 1

GNSO Council committee MP3 recording 25 August 2005
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG Aug. 25, 2005

Aug. 25, 2005

[To: ga[at]gnso.icann.org; announce[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org; council[at]gnso.icann.org] Please find the MP3 recording of the GNSO Council committee teleconference, held on August 25, 2005 at: http://gnso-audio.icann.org/GNSO-Council-20050825.mp3 http://www.gnso.icann.org/calendar/#aug Happy listening! -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

GNSO Review: Background Materials
by Liz Williams Aug. 25, 2005

Aug. 25, 2005

Colleagues I apologise I didn't send this out yesterday. It was ready but I didn't press the send button. Grant asked for some updated background on board discussions/decisions with respect to the GNSO review. I have cut these two relevant items from the Board minutes and the text of the discussion from the LUX Board meeting. Kind regards. Liz . 15 July 2005 Initiation of Review of GNSO Whereas, Article IV, Section 4 of the ICANN Bylaws provides that the ICANN Board will regularly initiate an independent review of each supporting organization and supporting organization council. Whereas, a review of the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) is due to be completed in 2006. Resolved (05.__), the ICANN Board hereby requests the GNSO Council to prepare with the ICANN staff and Board a "Terms of Reference" document to guide the independent entity an outside consultant in conducting a review of the GNSO, and present the terms of reference to the Board for adoption at the meeting in December 2005, in Vancouver, Canada. CUT FROM CAPTIONING OF LUXEMBOURG BOARD MEETING. >>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THAT. I HAVE BEEN ADVISED THERE IS SOME EDITING GOING ON WITH REGARD TO THE BUDGET, AND SO WE ARE GOING TO DELAY THAT ITEM UNTIL THE EDITING IS COMPLETE AND MOVE ON TO THE FOURTH ITEM ON THE AGENDA, WHICH IS INITIATION OF A REVIEW OF THE GNSO. AS YOU ARE ALL AWARE, OUR BYLAWS REQUIRE US TO REVIEW AND ASSESS THE OPERATION OF ALL OF OUR ORGANIZATION, THE SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS, COMMITTEES, THE BOARD AND SO ON. AT LEAST ONCE EVERY THREE YEARS. THE GNSO IS SORT OF UP FOR REVIEW. COUNCIL HAS BEEN REVIEWED BUT NOT THE ORGANIZATION AS A WHOLE. SO I WOULD LIKE TO CALL ON MIKE PALAGE TO INTRODUCE A MOTION TO DEAL WITH THAT REVIEW ITEM. MICHAEL. >>MICHAEL PALAGE: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. WHEREAS, ARTICLE IV, SECTION 4 OF THE ICANN BYLAWS PROVIDE THAT THE ICANN BOARD WILL REGULARLY INITIATE AN INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF EACH SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION AND SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION COUNCIL. WHEREAS, A REVIEW OF THE GENERIC NAMES SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION IS DUE TO BE COMPLETED IN 2006, IT IS PROPOSED TO BE RESOLVED THAT THE ICANN BOARD HEREBY REQUESTS THAT THE GNSO COUNCIL PREPARE WITH THE ICANN STAFF AND BOARD A "TERMS OF REFERENCE" DOCUMENT TO GUIDE THE INDEPENDENT -- TO GUIDE AN INDEPENDENT ENTITY, AN OUTSIDE CONSULTANT IN CONDUCTING A REVIEW OF THE GNSO AND PRESENT THE TERMS OF THE REFERENCE TO THE BOARD FOR ADOPTION AT THE MEETING IN DECEMBER 2005 IN VANCOUVER, CANADA. >>VINT CERF: IS THERE A SECOND FOR THIS MOTION? I SEE MOUHAMET, AND SEVERAL OTHERS, BUT I'LL PICK ON MOUHAMET. LET ME -- THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MICHAEL. LET ME ALSO SAY, FOR THE RECORD, THAT THE BOARD HAS CONSULTED WITH THE CHAIR OF THE GNSO AND CONFIRMED THAT, IN FACT, THIS REQUEST WILL BE WELL RECEIVED. THE CHAIR BELIEVED THAT IT WAS TIMELY FOR SUCH A REVIEW SO THIS SHOULD NOT BE A SURPRISE TO THE GNSO. IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION OF THIS MOTION? PETER. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: I AM IN FAVOR OF IT, AND I WILL VOTER IN FAVOR. JUST A POINT OF REFERENCE. THE BYLAWS ACTUALLY PROVIDE FOR THE INDEPENDENT REVIEW NOT ONLY OF THE SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS BUT ALSO OF ALL OTHER ADVISORY COMMITTEES, AND WE DON'T SEEM TO HAVE A PROGRAM FOR DEALING WITH THE OTHER. SO WHILE THIS IS IN FRONT OF US, WE COULD PERHAPS MAKE NOTE THAT WE COULD LOOK AT THE OTHERS. >>VINT CERF: THANK YOU. I DID MAKE REFERENCE TO THAT BUT YOU'RE QUITE RIGHT THAT WE DON'T HAVE ANY CURRENTLY ON THE RADAR SCREEN. SO THANK YOU FOR THE REMINDER. ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS ON THIS? RICHARD. >>RICHARD THWAITES: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. YES, WE WELCOME THE POSITIVE INDICATIONS FROM THE CHAIRMAN OF THE GNSO THAT A REVIEW WOULD BE WELCOME AND IS TIMELY. I ALSO PARTICULARLY NOTED THAT HE MADE REFERENCE IN CONSIDERING THE COMPLEXITY OF THE GNSO THAT IT DOES INCLUDE USER REPRESENTATION, OR, RATHER, IT IS THE ONLY PLACE IN ICANN WHERE A USER CONSTITUENCY, IN THE SENSE OF THOSE WHO NEED AND USE DNS AT THE APPLICATION LEVEL IN THEIR BUSINESSES. WE CONSIDER THIS FROM THE TLD PERSPECTIVE TO BE A VERY IMPORTANT DIMENSION OF ICANN THAT CAN DO WITH STRENGTHENING AND WE WILL BE HOPING THAT THE TERMS OF REFERENCE GIVE SUFFICIENT ACCOUNT TO THAT DIMENSION SO THAT ICANN IS NOT PURELY A SUPPLY SIDE GROUP BUT IS FULLY REPRESENTATIVE OF THE USER SIDE OF THE MARKET. THANK YOU. >>VINT CERF: THANK YOU, RICHARD. THAT PROMPTS ME TO ALSO OBSERVE THAT WE HAVE ANOTHER COMPONENT OF THE ICANN ORGANIZATION. IT'S CALLED THE AT-LARGE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, WHICH IS, WE HOPE, PRESENTLY SPAWNING REGIONAL AT-LARGE ORGANIZATIONS IN ORDER TO BRING OTHER USER INPUT INTO THE ICANN PROCESS. SO WE MAY HAVE TWO AVENUES BY WHICH TO ACHIEVE THAT, AND I WELCOME THAT, AS I'M SURE MY FELLOW BOARD MEMBERS DO. IF THERE ARE NO MORE COMMENTS ON THIS PARTICULAR RESOLUTION, I'LL CALL FOR A VOTE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF INITIATING THIS PROCESS TO BEGIN REVIEW OF THE GNSO, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. PUT YOUR HANDS DOWN. THAT WAS 15-0-0. AND MR. SECRETARY, I WOULD APPRECIATE IT IF YOU WOULD ADVISE THE CHAIRMAN OF THE GNSO THAT HIS REVIEW PROCESS HAS NOW BEEN INITIATED. 18 October 2004 GNSO Council Review Terms of Reference Approval Barbara Roseman, ICANN Policy Development Support Staff introduced discussion regarding proposed resolutions from the GNSO Council relating to the GNSO Council Review Terms of Reference. After board discussion and comments by Vint Cerf, Michael Palage, Alejandro Pisanty and Mouhamet Diop, on the above mentioned topics and the proposal, Michael Palage moved, with Alejandro Pistanty's second, that the Board adopt the following resolution: Whereas, Article IV, Section 4 of the ICANN bylaws requires the ICANN Board to organize regular reviews of each Supporting Organization, Council, and Advisory Committee. The review must be undertaken by an independent entity. Whereas, the GNSO Council authorized the preparation of terms of reference (TOR) by a small subcommittee of the Council, in cooperation with ICANN staff, which is now presented to the Board for ratification. Whereas, the review of the GNSO Council (rather than a review of the entire GNSO) is to be completed before the ICANN annual general meeting scheduled for December 2004. Whereas, the GNSO Council review calls for some specific actions within a short time period, short, factual, staff analysis of GNSO Council activities whether that organization has a continuing purpose in the ICANN structure, and if so, whether any change in structure or operations is desirable to improve its effectiveness. Resolved (04.__) the Board hereby ratifies the "Terms of Reference" to guide an outside consultant in conducting a review of the GNSO Council. The Board approved the above the above resolution by a unanimous 11-0 vote of those Board Members present. Liz Williams Senior Policy Counselor ICANN - Brussels Tel: +32 2 234 7874 Fax: +32 2 234 7848 Mob: +61 414 26 9000

1 0

GNSO Review: GNSO Council Call: Please use this document for 12:00 UTC Call
by Liz Williams Aug. 25, 2005

Aug. 25, 2005

Colleagues I hesitate to send you another version of the materials for this afternoon but this document is clean copy which includes all Bruce's edits. Speak to you in a couple of hours. Liz Liz Williams Senior Policy Counselor ICANN - Brussels Tel: +32 2 234 7874 Fax: +32 2 234 7848 Mob: +61 414 26 9000

1 0

Revised Extract from GNSO Council draft minutes, 18 August 2005
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG Aug. 25, 2005

Aug. 25, 2005

[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org] Dear Council members, Please find attached the revised extract from the GNSO Council draft minutes, 18 August 2005. change: [DELETE the registrar constituency was] [ADD registrars were] supportive of Marilyn Cade's added section d: Please let me know whether you would like any other changes made. This extract will be provided to the Board along with the proposed bylaw changes by the GNSO Chair, Bruce Tonkin. Thank you very much. Kind regards, Glen -- -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

RE: [council] Draft agenda for GNSO teleconference on terms of reference for the GNSO review - 25 August 2005
by Bruce Tonkin Aug. 25, 2005

Aug. 25, 2005

Hello Mike, > > So if the council believes that this would be a constructive > process I would encourage council to instruct staff to > undertake a formalized Q&A process with the ICANN Board ASAP > to provide specific reference points of what is and is not working. > The Council has scheduled a call with the ICANN Board on 8 September to do just that. We are having a meeting in 8&1/2 hours- which you are welcome to attend - to ensure we have an initial draft that we can send to the Board for input. Regards, Bruce

2 1

Re: [registrars] Terms of Reference for GNSO review
by Ross Wm. Rader Aug. 25, 2005

Aug. 25, 2005

The registrar constituency has begun formulating its views on the proposed terms of reference and the Board's review of the GNSO. This is neither a complete nor official document and does not represent a consensus or majority view of the constituency. It solely represents the early views of those few who have responded to the request for comments. Other registrars have indicated that they also wish to provide commentary, but have not been able to do so in the time provided. We will continue to gather feedback and input on this document and ensure that Council remains informed regarding this progress. While incomplete, we hope that this adds value to tomorrow's discussion. *** Review TOR 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. Further, we should also seek to understand the extent of the value of the GNSO's other participatory mechanisms such as public forums at physical meetings, the public comments processes within the PDP and the capability for like-minded parties to form new constituencies. - - 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. 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. Specific examination of the perceived relevancy of the constituency input process and public input process to these other groups would be useful. 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. In the absence of a definition or detailed examination, it may suffice to simply test perceptions by asking whether or not the processes in question are "fair", and if not, why. - - 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. Further, this question should be expanded to include an examination of the effectiveness of the GNSO Staff Manager and the administrative and operational support provided by ICANN staff per Article X. Section 4.1. and 4.2 of the bylaws. - - 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. To the extent that the PDP is being analysed, specific attention should be focused on whether or not the Board, the GNSO and other stakeholders prefer to focus on the process or the output. In other words, a lot of the complaints about the PDP relate to the amount of time that it takes to create and implement policy. It is not well understood if this is a failure of the process or a natural function of the complexity of the specific issue being examined. - - 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. It would be useful to also seek to understand the nature and role of the various accountabilities - actual and desired - between the GNSO, the council, the constituencies, staff and board. Further, this question seeks answers regarding the use of "statements of interest". This is an undefined term and may be taken to mean the use of statement of conflicts of interest or statements of stakeholder impact. To the extent this is referring to the former, we should seek to discover the degree to which these are used within the GNSO today and better understand whether or not current disclosure practices are sufficient. 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.)

1 0

Draft agenda for GNSO teleconference on terms of reference for the GNSO review - 25 August 2005
by Bruce Tonkin Aug. 25, 2005

Aug. 25, 2005

Hello All, The Draft agenda is as follows: (1) Review the goals and expected outcomes of the GNSO review, at both the Council and constituency level (2) Discuss the current draft document - receive input from Council members and constituencies - specific drafting should be handled via the mailing list (3) Discuss the involvement of the GNSO constituencies in the review, and identify what information will be needed from the constituencies to assist the external review Regards, Bruce

3 2

Meeting to provide input to the terms of reference for the GNSO Council review - Thu 8 Sept 2005 12:00 UTC
by Bruce Tonkin Aug. 25, 2005

Aug. 25, 2005

Hello Vint, Please pass on this note to the members of the ICANN Board. The GNSO Council invites all members of the ICANN board to attend a teleconference on Thursday 8 September 2005 at 12:00 UTC ((5:00 Los Angeles, 8:00 Washington DC, 14:00 Brussels, 22:00 Melbourne) to provide input into developing the terms of reference for the GNSO review. This meeting is in response to the request from the ICANN Board to the GNSO Council to prepare with the ICANN staff and Board a "Terms of Reference" document to guide the independent entity an outside consultant in conducting a review of the GNSO, and present the terms of reference to the Board for adoption at the meeting in December 2005, in Vancouver, Canada. The GNSO Council is using the following process to manage the development of the terms of reference for the approval of the Board. (1) The ICANN bylaws set out the high level goals of review for all parts of the ICANN community. The goal of the review shall be to determine (i) whether that organization has a continuing purpose in the ICANN structure, (ii) and if so, whether any change in structure or operations is desirable to improve its effectiveness. The criteria and standards of the review are approved by the Board. The Board in turn has asked the GNSO Council to prepare with the ICANN staff and Board a "Terms of Reference" document to guide the independent entity an outside consultant in conducting a review of the GNSO, and present the terms of reference to the Board for adoption at the meeting in December 2005, in Vancouver, Canada. The ICANN staff support for this process is being provided by Dr Liz Williams, Senior Policy Counselor. (2) The Council is holding a teleconference with members of the GNSO Community on 25 August 2005 to provide input into developing a first draft. The Council will provide the resulting first draft to the Board for review. Board members will be encouraged to provide written input to the GNSO Council on this draft. (3) The Council will hold a teleconference with the Board to discuss the draft terms of reference and the individual inputs from Board members at a teleconference on 8 September. The Council will be seeking direction from the Board on changes that should be made to the terms of reference. The Council will then provide the resulting second draft to the Board for review. Board members will be encouraged to provide written input to the GNSO Council on this draft. The final draft terms of reference will then be submitted to the Board for approval at the Board's meeting in Vancouver, Canada . The Council looks forward to early input from the Board on the terms of reference. Regards, Bruce Tonkin Chair, GNSO Council

1 0

RE: [council] Draft agenda for GNSO teleconference on terms of reference for the GNSO review - 25 August 2005
by Bruce Tonkin Aug. 25, 2005

Aug. 25, 2005

Hello Ross, > > > (1) Review the goals and expected outcomes of the GNSO > review, at both > > the Council and constituency level > > Whose goals and expectations will we be reviewing? I have > mentioned to others that I have an expectation that this > process will be a constructive, bi-directional communication > that will hopefully provide the GNSO with feedback and > direction regarding structural and procedural improvements > that will help it serve and work within the ICANN community > in a more effective manner. To that end, it would be helpful > to understand and discuss not only what our goals and > expectations are for this process, but more importantly, > those of others (the other SOs, the staff and primarily, the > Board having commissioned this review in the first place). > This is a good question. The ICANN bylaws set out the high level goals of review for all parts of the ICANN community. The goal of the review shall be to determine (i) whether that organization has a continuing purpose in the ICANN structure, (ii) and if so, whether any change in structure or operations is desirable to improve its effectiveness. The criteria and standards of the review are approved by the Board. The Board in turn has asked the GNSO Council to prepare with the ICANN staff and Board a "Terms of Reference" document to guide the independent entity an outside consultant in conducting a review of the GNSO, and present the terms of reference to the Board for adoption at the meeting in December 2005, in Vancouver, Canada. For this meeting we are getting input from within the GNSO Community. The output will be a draft terms of reference from the GNSO community. At the next meeting we will be getting input from the Board. The output will be a draft terms of reference with input from the Board and the GNSO community. The final draft terms of reference will then be submitted to the Board for approval before the review begins. The outcome of the GNSO Council review in 2004 was that the Council was found to have a continuing purpose in the ICANN structure. The 2004 review also made recommendations for how to improve the effectiveness of the GNSO Council. I expect the 2006 review will consider whether the Council has adopted these recommendations and if it is more effective than a year ago. I am working on the assumption that this review will also find that all the constituencies also have a continuing purpose. Thus I would like to focus the meeting on how best to arrive at a set of useful recommendations that improve the effectiveness of the constituencies. Ultimately the terms of reference should assist the external reviewer to develop a set of useful recommendations that improve the effectiveness of the GNSO. Regards, Bruce

1 0