Liz, fellow Council
members,
this is an excellent
start to defining the TOR.
A few comments
to help with our discussion on 25 August 2005.
1.
Call. I would imagine we will need at least 2 hours for the
call.
2. A:
rationale - Excellent.
3. B.
Background Documents: I feel a more explicit list of the actions
outstanding from the GNSO Council review is required. Maria circulated a useful
chart on this (6 June 2005).What needs to be included in the TOR (under each
relevant category) from this chart are:
- just the actions
identified but not yet completed (eg PDP timelines review)
- who is expected to
do the uncompleted actions (staff, Council, Board?)
Without this
analysis we duplicate.
4. C:
Operational Objectives. This is a useful subset of relevance to the
GNSO.
5. D: Scope.
It would be useful
to number the bullet points for ease of reference.
6. D1.
Representativeness.
- The sub question
about constituencies being open to individuals seems irrelevant, as does the
phrase "who wishes to participate". Is a wish to participate sufficient reason
for an individual? More importantly, that does not seem to me to be a condition
for the stated representativeness of a constituency. Most constituency members
are organisations and provide representation that way. The ALAC is the home for
individual perspectives.
- additional
constituencies for more input: perhaps this should be phrased would add
value? There will always be unhelpful input!
- barriers: does this refer to barriers to entry or internal
barriers to communication?
- ALAC, GAC: does
this point belong under representativeness of the constituencies?
- no mention of the role and effect of the nom comm
Councillors.
7. D2
Authority/ Effectiveness.
It is difficult to
understand the distinction of these two categories when read in conjunction with
the sub-points under each category. Maybe room to remove one
category?
8.D2
Authority
- Is it always
Council that should have implemented the outstanding GNSO Council review
items?
- fairness: this is
a challenge to define and judge. Propose deletion.
- double
voting. This should be expanded to cover questions of rationale, merit, skewed
outcomes, and anti-trust implications,
- The GNSO Council bylaws DO need amending re
PDP - no need to ask the question! (this is a good example of potential
duplication).
- I don't understand
the point about constituency structure here. Does this not duplicate
Representativeness?
9. D3
Effectiveness.
- point two about
"benefits to all parties" seems too wide for this review - unless there is a
USD10m budget for the review!!!
- PDP - the GNSO
Council Review has already said it needs changing. Duplication
again.
- "ICANN is
satisfied". Need to define ICANN - board, staff, community? If community,
remember there will be parts of the community who are never satisfied! Also need
to define satisfied. Board disagreement may lead to Board dissatisfaction with a
policy but nevertheless the GNSO process and outcome could have been the model
of effectiveness!
10.
Transparency.
- It will be useful
to completely separate the points about participation / accountability of
affected parties and conflicts of interest.
- The GNSO Council
review already identified the website as in need of
improvement.
11.
Measures.
- I agree this is
important but also the most challenging part of the proposal! The section is not
of course separate but actually a methodology for all the other sections.
Maybe we should seek to capture this in some way.
- Point 4a about
defining open, fairness, bottom up will be key. Unless these items are defined
for the purpose of the review, certain of the proposed questions of the review,
will be impossible to answer objectively. Propose therefore that this should be
a point nearer the top of the TORs.
Philip