The dialog is much appreciated Tim. I inserted a few more responses below. Chuck Gomes "This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify sender immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission."
-----Original Message----- From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@godaddy.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 8:26 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Avri Doria; Council GNSO Subject: RE: [council] Draft reply Council on GNSO reform
Should I conclude that you were not impressed with any of this experience?
I never said that. I said I am not impressed with the WG experience so far. As you said, some of the examples had *elements* that should be useful But in general, I don't think WGs have worked well except for non-controversial issues. There are also examples of TFs that have worked well, and there are certainly elements from them that we should consider, as well as the committee of the whole approach.
CG: I am curious to know which task forces that you think worked well.
What the BGC is calling for is a committment to WGs. In my opinion it is premature to make such a committment. There is no evidence that I have seen that indicates WGs are any better than TFs.
CG: As I understand it, it is a commitment to WGs that are yet to be fully defined. I agree that it is general commitment to a working group model. You and I disagree on there being 'no evidence that I have seen that indicates WGs are any
better than TFs'. I believe that the following WGs provide lots of evidence: Introduction of New gTLDs, RN-WG and IDN WG. And in the case of New gTLDs, there was lots of controversy.
I challenge you to look carefully at the task force model in the current PDP in the Bylaws. It is very narrowly defined and restrictive and has much less flexibility than anything we have done along the lines of a WG.
I know it very well, and have participated on a number of TFs. Quite honestly, I like the TF model and think there are very good reasons for it's narrow definition. When it has failed, as in the Whois TF(s), it had little to do with the TF model. The root cause is usually that there simply is no consensus. What I hope we don't do is come up with something that forces or fakes a consensus when there isn't one.
CG: Totally agree with you on this point. I have long advocated that we need to recognize that there will be times when there is no consensus and that is okay unless there is some emergency security or stability issues at stake.
So again, I support continued use of WGs but I don't support committing to them as *thee* only mechanism. That said, I think Philip's latest draft puts it very well.
Tim
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] Draft reply Council on GNSO reform From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> Date: Tue, November 27, 2007 9:36 am To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@godaddy.com> Cc: "Avri Doria" <avri@psg.com>, "Council GNSO" <council@gnso.icann.org>
Tim,
Please see my comments below.
Chuck Gomes
"This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify sender immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission."
-----Original Message----- From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@godaddy.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 12:45 AM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Avri Doria; Council GNSO Subject: RE: [council] Draft reply Council on GNSO reform
Chuck, it would be qualified support at best. I am not convinced of the WG model yet. We have very little experience with it as a primary policy development mechanism, and what experience we do have I am not that impressed with. So the proof is in the eating of the pudding.
CG: What about the experience we had with the Introduction of New gTLDs Committee that lasted for about 20 months? What about the GNSO IDN WG? What about the Reserved Names WG? All of these incorporated useful elements of working groups. Should I conclude that you were not impressed with any of this experience? I am fully aware of the difficulties with the Whois WG and I think we can learn from that to design improvements into the WG approach, but we also should recognize that no model, WG model or any other, will be a panacea. Hence the need for flexibility.
We need to define how WGs should be structured and operate and then try it out, and refine as necessary. Until we know that WGs can be consistently effective I don't see them as any better, or worse, than the Task Force model.
Totally agree that it needs to be defined. That is the task in front of us, "to define how WGs should be structured and operate". As long as we do that thoroughly and carefully, we have the opportunity to improve the process. That can and should include the positive elements of successful working groups and task forces of the past and it definitely should include flexibility as I think all of us agree. Moreover, it should include ongoing review and improvement as we learn.
I challenge you to look carefully at the task force model in the current PDP in the Bylaws. It is very narrowly defined and restrictive and has much less flexibility than anything we have done along the lines of a WG.
Tim
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] Draft reply Council on GNSO reform From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> Date: Mon, November 26, 2007 3:31 pm To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@godaddy.com> Cc: "Avri Doria" <avri@psg.com>, "Council GNSO" <council@gnso.icann.org>
Please translate Tim. Where are you at on this one? Support? Partial Support? Qualidfied Support? Other?
Chuck Gomes
"This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify sender immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission."
From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@godaddy.com] Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 4:04 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Avri Doria; Council GNSO Subject: RE: [council] Draft reply Council on GNSO reform
I'm not sure I am ready to jump on to the unanimous
bandwagon on this
one. Conferring with my Constituency peers.
Tim
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] Draft reply Council on GNSO reform From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> Date: Mon, November 26, 2007 1:35 pm To: "Avri Doria" <avri@psg.com>, "Council GNSO" <council@gnso.icann.org>
So we are sayiing "we unanimously partially support the recommendation"? Sounds a little confusing to me. At the same time, note that in my response to Philip just sent a couple minutes ago, I suggested "Qualified Support". I think it may be an improvement to say "we unanimously support a recommendation with qualifications".
Chuck Gomes
"This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify sender immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission."
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 10:11 AM To: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Draft reply Council on GNSO reform
Hi,
I thought that the partial support meant that we, as a group, had reservations that were expressed in the included statements.
In the preface we say the the level os support an unanimous. So partial support does not refer to the level of support in the council but rather to the degree to which we unanimously support the recommendation as written in the BWG draft.
a.
On 26 nov 2007, at 15.57, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Thanks again Philip. This is looking very good in my opinion, but I still have a four areas of concern.
3. All policy is developed in working groups in place of task forces of Council.
I still don't understand what positive elements in the current task force model would be excluded in a working group model. I would appreciate some explanation here. For the moment at least, I think we should say "Support", not "Partial Support". I have no problem emphasizing the need to include flexibility in the WG model but do not support the suggestion to include 'task forces'.
3.2 Steps to improve effectiveness/ efficiency: proposals for running working groups.
Why only "Partial Support" for this? I think we should say "Support".
4.1b Amend the bylaws to clarify the limited set of "consensus policies" upon which the GNSO may make change.
I think we should say "Support", not "Partial Support".
5.2 Steps to improve effectiveness. The monitoring / oversight role of Council.
Why only "Partial Support" for this? I think we should say "Support".
Chuck Gomes
"This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify sender immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission."
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 2:18 PM To: Philip Sheppard; Council GNSO Subject: RE: [council] Draft reply Council on GNSO reform
Thank you very much Philip for the very quick turn-around on this and for a job very well done. I inserted my comments in the attached document.
Chuck Gomes
"This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify sender immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission."
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 9:04 AM To: 'Council GNSO' Subject: [council] Draft reply Council on GNSO reform
As agreed on yesterday's Council call, I promised to draft a short paper as a "straw man" listing those recommendations on GNSO reform that may be supportable by Council as a whole. Given the deadline is submission by 30 November I thought I'd better get a move on.
Not surprisingly those listed are ones seeking: - improvements in policy development and timeline flexibility, - improvements in communications, - improvements in outreach - greater support for constituencies.
I have left out proposals on structural change suspecting we will have differing views.
On working groups, I am proposing a partial support, suspecting we mostly feel they will work for much policy work, but that tying our hands to have ONLY working groups for EVERY issue before us would be too inflexible.
I hope I have captured areas of potential agreement. Your first comments please by November 25 after which time I'll edit a proposed final version. Comments can be as simple as - "yes I/we support" or can be proposals to strike one of the proposed areas of agreement. In that case, a word of explanation would be good to share.
Philip