Some initial thoughts on Working Groups
Hi, Attached is a brief set of notes on considerations for forming WGs. This is the deliverable that was discussed briefly at our Thursday meeting in ND. It is my personal opinion formed from participation in and chair of many working groups, and similar groups, over the years. as such it has no status other then as a suggestion for a possible point from which to start conversations. I am sure there are more considerations then what I have included and I am also sure that there are many ways of looking at this issue that I have not touched upon. I believe that we will need to spend some time on our plans to dealing with the GNSO restructuring at our next meeting on 27 March. At that time I will suggest that we form a standing Committee to work on guidelines for WGs. Perhaps this Standing Committee will also be able to deal with the questions on PDP as they are fundamentally linked with WGs. In any case this draft is not for discussion at today's (6 March) meeting and is meant as one starting place for the discussion we, the GNSO community and the ICANN community at large need to engage in. thanks a.
Thanks Avri. This seems like an excellent starting point to me. I think there are a couple of words missing in the following in the first paragraph after the list of bullets on page 2: "These rules also do specify any guidelines for the relationship between the GNSO, the GNSO Council and the WGs. As it stands, these rules may not a sufficient recipe for a WG as it can leave a WG either floundering without recourse or subject it to undue influence from the GNSO council." Is there a 'not' missing in the first sentence and a 'be' missing in the second sentence? It seems to me that the first additional guideline you list also applies to the new PDP work; it is at least one I have been thinking about some. The 'level of interest' may be a factor we want to consider in the process of deciding whether or not to initiate a PDP, although that in itself should not be the criterion. (As Liz already pointed out, the WG and PDP efforts will be interdependent.) I definitely think that having a Council liaison on every WG is a good idea and think that where possible two liaisons may be good, especially in WGs that may last for a considerable length of time, thereby providing a backup liaison. But I think this should be balanced with a maximum limit on how many Councilors should be on the WG for the following reasons: 1) to make sure that the WG and the WG manager (the Council) are relatively independent of one another; 2) to minimize the chances of Councilors and WG members being spread too thin in their individual work loads; 3) to lessen the likelihood of having scheduling conflicts due to involvement in multiple activities. I would go one step further and suggest minimizing the number of working groups that any one individual may participate in simultaneously; my rationale here would include reasons 2) and 3) in the previous sentence plus the following: to encourage involvement of more and new participants in the policy development process. As you noted, we don't need to be overly rigid, but variance from the guidelines should happen only on an exception basis and for well documented reasons. I will try to do something similar for the PDP revision but it will probably be a few days before I can get to it. Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 7:51 AM To: Council GNSO Subject: [council] Some initial thoughts on Working Groups
Hi,
Attached is a brief set of notes on considerations for forming WGs. This is the deliverable that was discussed briefly at our Thursday meeting in ND. It is my personal opinion formed from participation in and chair of many working groups, and similar groups, over the years. as such it has no status other then as a suggestion for a possible point from which to start conversations. I am sure there are more considerations then what I have included and I am also sure that there are many ways of looking at this issue that I have not touched upon.
I believe that we will need to spend some time on our plans to dealing with the GNSO restructuring at our next meeting on 27 March. At that time I will suggest that we form a standing Committee to work on guidelines for WGs. Perhaps this Standing Committee will also be able to deal with the questions on PDP as they are fundamentally linked with WGs.
In any case this draft is not for discussion at today's (6 March) meeting and is meant as one starting place for the discussion we, the GNSO community and the ICANN community at large need to engage in.
thanks
a.
Hi Chuck, Thanks for reading and commenting so quickly. Some quick responses. On 6 Mar 2008, at 11:06, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
I definitely think that having a Council liaison on every WG is a good idea and think that where possible two liaisons may be good, especially in WGs that may last for a considerable length of time, thereby providing a backup liaison.
I agree. the reason I worded it as I did "at least one" is that there may be cases where the scpe is narow enough or the milestones short enough that this may not be necessary. As I have probably made clear various times in the past I am personally very much in favor of co- chaired leadership for precisely the reaon you give. And for the additional reason that having co-chairs gives chairs greater latitude in participation as it allows for one co-chair to stand aside on an issue he or she cares about, leaving the rough consensus call to the other co-chair.
think there are a couple of words missing in the following in the first paragraph after the list of bullets on page 2: "These rules also do specify any guidelines for the relationship between the GNSO, the GNSO Council and the WGs. As it stands, these rules may not a sufficient recipe for a WG as it can leave a WG either floundering without recourse or subject it to undue influence from the GNSO council." Is there a 'not' missing in the first sentence and a 'be' missing in the second sentence?
Yes. Thank you. Corrected version attached. a.
Avri, thanks for the document, also thanks Chuck for your comments. These are some of my thoughts and some questions about this issue. Avri, I comment following the numbers included in your document: *1- level of interest or activity that brings a WG into existence:* Some mechanisms and rules should be develop in order to recieve good imput from other ICANN supporting organizations, from different stakeholders or from the Internet community as a whole. These mechanisms should be dynamic and simple enough to make the process to start a WG in a reasonable time. *2- Council members should, in general, not chair policy working groups though it is reasonable for them to be chair of process oriented working groups.* Avri, Could you clarify this idea? *3- chairs should be unbiased* I agree, but sometimes this could be difficult to achieve due to individual experience and knowledge. The idea of a co-chair is very good but in my oppinion the major goal is to set up very well ballanced WG, considering its members backgrounds and individual interests. The number of members in the WG should also be reasonable in order to allow this ballance but also to be not too slow. *6- There needs to be an appeals systems for Working Group chair* I agree, appeals systems are relevant for the existence of any kind of organization and applies also for this WG concept. *7- charters that define their scope and give milestones* A well defined charter is relevant for reaching any achievement with the WG. Working by consensus or rough consensus makes any outcome very powerful, but if the objectives and relevant dates are not well planned and defined, the time needed for the process could make the outcomes being late, or the resulting documents being not really focused on the WG objective. If formed, I am interested in working in a committee that consideres these issues. Best regards Olga 2008/3/6, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org>:
Hi Chuck,
Thanks for reading and commenting so quickly.
Some quick responses.
On 6 Mar 2008, at 11:06, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
I definitely think that having a Council liaison on every WG is a good idea and think that where possible two liaisons may be good, especially in WGs that may last for a considerable length of time, thereby providing a backup liaison.
I agree. the reason I worded it as I did "at least one" is that there may be cases where the scpe is narow enough or the milestones short enough that this may not be necessary. As I have probably made clear various times in the past I am personally very much in favor of co- chaired leadership for precisely the reaon you give. And for the additional reason that having co-chairs gives chairs greater latitude in participation as it allows for one co-chair to stand aside on an issue he or she cares about, leaving the rough consensus call to the other co-chair.
think there are a couple of words missing in the following in the first paragraph after the list of bullets on page 2: "These rules also do specify any guidelines for the relationship between the GNSO, the GNSO Council and the WGs. As it stands, these rules may not a sufficient recipe for a WG as it can leave a WG either floundering without recourse or subject it to undue influence from the GNSO council." Is there a 'not' missing in the first sentence and a 'be' missing in the second sentence?
Yes. Thank you.
Corrected version attached.
a.
participants (3)
-
Avri Doria -
Gomes, Chuck -
Olga Cavalli