Thanks, Liz. Helpful to have the staff’s
suggestions for consideration in the Council discussion; and especially to
support the discussion points I had raised for the Council’s discussion.
You can also call me, if you are still
doing the individualized outreach on my cell.
From: Liz Williams
[mailto:liz.williams@icann.org]
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005
4:25 AM
To: 'Marilyn Cade';
council@gnso.icann.org
Cc: 'Kurt Pritz'; 'John Jeffrey'
Subject: RE: [council] GNSO
Review: Phase One Paper
Marilyn
Thank you for these helpful
comments. Bruce has provided in a separate email more historical notes
about the DNSO review
Just a couple of clarifying notes.
On the
issue of a time line for Council consideration of any agenda item. I had thought
that the 7 day timeline for Council was for matters that were being considered
for a vote by Council. The GNSO
Review: Phase One Paper is not something which is the subject
of a Council vote nor is it a part of any policy development process which
requires consensus decision making. It is a discussion document which
includes information about the review and a proposed timeline for the
completion of that work. Discussion with the Council Chair confirmed that
view. It may well be that detailed discussion takes place between Council
meetings and via email or telephone. That would mean that the initial
paper is available for longer scrutiny, however, see below on practical
timelines which have been set by the LUX resolution and the Company Secretary.
On the
issue of a time line for developing the Terms of Reference. The
LUX resolution is quite specific in its requirement that we needed to have
ready for the VCR Board meeting the TOR document. Working backwards from
the Sunday Dec 4 meeting date, and taking into account the Company
Secretary’s requirements for submission of papers to the Board, a
timeline has emerged which gives opportunity for the GNSO Council to make input
on the Phase One Paper, for the
GNSO constituencies’ views to be considered and, at the same time, for
Board members to have opportunities for providing input in parallel. In
particular, the Board Governance Committee has already been sent a copy of the
paper. This is all taking place at the same time.
On the
issue of information papers being sent to the Board. I had
proposed that, after the Council had completed its first phase of input, a
proper information paper would be sent to the Board. Council would,
indeed, have seen that paper as it would have come out of consultations with
Council members, the broader GNSO constituencies and the ICANN staff.
To save time on the Council call, I have
answered the other questions you have posed.
1). This question is addressed in
the Phase One Paper in Section A
which explains the rationale of any ICANN reviews, the appropriate instructing
By Law for this review and the actual timing of the GNSO review based on the
length of time the GNSO has been in operation. I
2). See above. The GNSO Review
is a normal part of ICANN’s operations. The Luxembourg Resolution
makes is clear that the GNSO Review process is now underway, that the TOR must
be completed in time for the VCR meeting and that the review itself must be
finished, as early as possible, in 2006.
3) The LUX
resolution requires that ICANN staff, the Council and Board prepare the
TOR. As you know, I have consulted with all GNSO Councillors (including
the Advisory Committee representatives), interested members of the Board
(particularly those on the Governance Committee) and the senior ICANN staff in
preparing the Phase One Paper.
The Paper reflects input from all
those sources.
4) The GNSO
Council review is included as a reference document in the Phase One Paper. It is clear from
discussions with Councillors that recommendations from that process are in the
process of being implemented. I look forward to further discussions
of the GNSO Strategic Plan and how Council plans to address the
recommendations. You will see that the timing of the broader review would
give an opportunity for further reflection on Council’s implementation
plans – the GNSO review will start in early January 2006. The GNSO
Council recommendations were completed in December 2004.
5) You have asked
for specificity about the use of the word ICANN. After the Council call
on 18 August, I will see where there are opportunities to seek specific input
on the areas you mentioned. I would say though that an independent
consultant/outside entity would consult widely with all elements of the
organisation and also with corporations and individuals outside the
organisation.
I hope this clarifies some of your
questions which will save time on the Council call later this week.
Kind regards.
Liz
From: Marilyn Cade
[mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2005
5:02 PM
To: council@gnso.icann.org; Olof
Nordling
Cc: Kurt Pritz; John Jeffrey;
liz.williams@icann.org
Subject: RE: [council] GNSO
Review: Phase One Paper
I wish to raise a point of order regarding
how we approach the agenda item for the Terms of Reference for the GNSO Review
and ask for the following approach:
Under our agenda, posted 7 days before the
Council meeting, as required, we have a topic addressing the timeline for work
on the ToR.
That is what I propose that Council address:
reviewing and reaching agreement on a detailed working timeline.
Unfortunately, the staff submission which
I will hereafter refer to as “staff working paper”, which contains
the proposed timeline did not meet the required 7 day period. That is regrettable.
Having said that, it seems reasonable to consider this a delayed contribution
and to work from the proposed time line, which is the topic we have on
our Council agenda.
Thus, we should focus in first on Item F
on the staff working paper/delayed contribution, which provides a basic
timeline. I have concerns about some of the dates proposed and questions about
the lack of interaction between the Council and Board; I’ve made a
proposal about the latter in this email. While we can have further discussion
online, it is my hope to have the discussion interactively on the call among
the Councilors.
As to the substance of the staff working
paper, having received it, it is now important to have sufficient time to both
discuss it, and to carefully consider in an interactive discussion, the
substance of Item D. I am not comfortable that we can fully undertake that in
Thursday’s call. We have other substantive issues already on the agenda
that require attention, and we may need to undertake a sub-group focus with
reporting back to the full Council, on completing further input and work on the
ToR. And, I would expect we will need to work on this in between this
Council meeting and the September meeting. For instance, I am not comfortable
with “information papers” that the Council hasn’t seen being
sent to the Board. Thus, we need to provide staff sufficient access to the
Council, or a subset of the Council, to provide the needed ongoing input and
comment.
And, to address Ken’s often
expressed concerns, input does not equal micromanagement. J
My comments below are to provide further
background to fellow councilors regarding additional materials that we need in
order to fulfill our responsibilities in the development of the ToR “with
the ICANN staff and Board” and to request that these materials/or a
response be provided for the Council meeting.
1) the development of the timing of the gNSO
‘review’ seems to be based on a decision by the Board after
discussions that have not been shared with Council. Regardless of the
date the decision was reached by Board, or the rationale, that information is
useful and even necessary background to Council. Thus, since the Board decided
to prioritize the review of the gNSO above one that is required by the bylaws
of a sister organization, there may be discussions, minutes, or even staff
recommendations or board member concerns that should be shared with the Council
itself, not just the staff.
2) Council should have access to information regarding discussion,
presentations, or any materials shared with the Board that led to the
recommendation to focus on gNSO review as a priority. Those should be provided
on Thursday’s meeting, or a time determined when they will be available.
This may be something very simple -- a board discussion on DATE, staff comments
provided which addressed a, b. c… etc. If the discussions were informal,
then a summary from staff of the discussions should be sufficient. Having
an understanding of the perceptions, concerns, and interests of the Board in
supporting this prioritization is important for Council in order to ensure an
effective ToR.
3) the
resolution provides for “preparing with the ICANN staff and Board
“… thus, I recommend that we, as Council, invite the Board to
appoint a few board members, or to seek volunteer Board members, to
participate with us in the work of developing the ToR, of course, and it goes
without saying, always
supported by staff in this process.
Involvement
in this should not be extraordinarily time consuming for the Board members, and
should result in improved understanding within the Board of the views expressed
by the Council and the perspectives of the SO.
Further,
I recommend that we plan accordingly, and reach agreement now, with the Board, that
Council will present the ToR, supported by the staff, in a joint Board/Council
discussion in VC.
It seems obvious that we should be working somewhat interactively
with at least a subset of the Board, before VC, in order to avoid a disconnect
of perspectives and to work through any areas of concern. I think we all are
committed to increasing as appropriate how the Council represents itself
directly in interaction and interpretation of the Council’s input, while
relying upon staff for support for Council’s work.
4) I
call fellow Councilors attention to other work that is related that must be
addressed as well:
As all
will recall, the bylaws called for a review of the Council. This was completed,
with several outstanding recommendations, which we need to prioritize as work
items to discuss and schedule how to address. Those items should be a priority.
They should be specifically referenced in the working draft background
document of the staff.
On
Thursday, in the discussion of the timeline, we should discuss whether to
include/incorporate these items in the ToR, or merely note that they are work
in progress, and ensure that they are indeed work in progress, what the
tracking is of progress, and what steps remain to be taken to address them.
Again, I ask that staff’s supporting documents identify the work items,
address where we are in those areas, Council can then determine its proposed
action to conclude this work, either separately, or in conjunction with the ToR
and review.
Should
Council prefer to have parallel tracks of work, then this should just be noted
in the ToR, so that in the review undertaken, the independent entity is guided
by an awareness that there is work in progress in areas that have impact upon
the SO.
One final comment. When we say
“ICANN”, we mean the collectiveness of all the community. When we
say ICANN staff, or ICANN Board, or ICANN gNSO, then we are speaking of a
subset. I notice in the staff working paper that there is a reference in 3, to
whether “ICANN is satisfied with the advice”. I confess I
don’t know who is meant in that particular reference to
“ICANN”. If it is the ICANN Board, then we should spell that out.
If it is the “ICANN staff”, then spell that out; if it is the full
community, then of course it is appropriate to use “ICANN” here.
I suspect from personal interactions with
some board members, that this is actually a reference to questions from the
Board, including the Advisory Committee liaisons. That is quite important to
understand, in any case, and given how ICANN [the full community] is maturing
and evolving and how significant the work/policy items are that it addresses,
is quite to be expected that such a question would arise. However, if the
question is specific, as well, it is important to understand that and to
consider how to address it.
I will comment on the tone that we should
seek to achieve in the ToR, and in the review itself. Having spent many
years as a manager—and an executive with reporting staff, and having been
“managed” myself by many seriously committed executives, first in
government, and then in private industry, I have a view that
“reviews” are to be used as ways to achieve improvement, not
isolation of problems for the purposes of criticism. When one does a performance
review, the goals are to help to improve performance, even of top performers in
an organization. Organizations often undertake self review, and engage in
Strategic Planning for that very purpose; they identify things that can be
improved, and they put the processes in place to improve.
We undertook such an extensive review of
the entirety of ICANN not so long ago in the Evolution and Reform process and
we decided, as a broad ICANN community to make several changes. We are now in
the midst of institutionalizing and improving the performance of ICANN, based
on the changes made at that time… and in this review, I would hope that
we are mindful of the very recent changes that the organization undertook and
focus in on continuing improvements, not revolutionary change. I believe we
have committed to, as a community, evolutionary and ongoing change. The review
of the gNSO should reflect that as a core principle.
Best regards,
Marilyn Cade
From:
owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Liz Williams
Sent: Friday, August 12, 2005 5:48
AM
To: council@gnso.icann.org
Subject: [council] GNSO Review:
Phase One Paper
Dear Colleagues
I have attached a paper which reflects the first phase of consultation
and feedback about the GNSO Review Terms of Reference. I am grateful to
everyone who has contributed ideas either by email or on the telephone.
The GNSO Review is at Item 2 on the agenda for the 18 August
call. The agenda item refers specifically to the timeline for the GNSO
Terms of Reference. This paper provides the timeline and more detailed
information.
After the 18 August call, I will prepare an information
paper for distribution to the Board. I will then incorporate their
feedback into a Second Phase paper. You will note that we have quite
tight deadlines to meet the Board’s requirements for notification of
items for the
If you have any further questions or need clarification on
anything my numbers are below or you can email me.
Kind regards.
Liz
Dr Liz Williams
Senior Policy Counselor
ICANN -
Tel: +32 2 234 7874
Fax: +32 2 234 7848
Mob: +61 414 26 9000