Additional agenda item for the Council call on 16 Nov - regarding IDN working group
Hello All, I would like to add an additional agenda item regarding the GNSO IDN working group. As you know, I chaired the original working group on the assumption that the working group had a very short life. Based on the last Council meetings decision to re-instate the working group with no specific time limit, I wanted to hand over the chair to another person. There have been two candidates that have been nominated by committee members - Ram Mohan and Sophia Bekele. I have thus initiated an email election process based on the existing membership of the working group to put a new chair in place. There are however outstanding issues: - clearly defining the charter of the working group - clarifying the rules for membership I have received some requests from people in the ICANN community that are currently not members of a GNSO constituency, but are members of the general assembly mailing list. So far I have been recommending that these people join one of the existing GNSO constituencies to meet the requirement of a "GNSO volunteer" I have since noticed that the current definition of a working group in: http://www.gnso.icann.org/council/names-proceduresv7.shtml opens up membership to "members of the General Assembly (GA) defined as subscribers to the ga@dnso.org, announce@dnso.org or the GA voting register". I am not sure if this is the Council's intent. The working group is attracting plenty of interest, but my concern is that without a clear charter that we are setting false expectations regarding the purpose of this working group. We also need to clearly establish the working group in the context of the President's Advisory Committee, the ccNSO working group, and the new gTLD committee. It has also been noted that perhaps we should hold off on electing a chair until the above is clearer, and we have done a public call for members etc. One alternative is that we continue with the current election and with the current group of members, and that the elected chair work with the group to finalise a charter and submit that to the GNSO Council for approval. I don't personally have the time to do that, hence my interest in handing over responsibility to someone else. We could limit the "initial" term of the chair to three months, and then if the working group is still operational, we could hold a follow up election. Alternatively if the two candidates are willing, we could simply suggest they be appointed as joint chairs for the purpose of moving the work forward. I am interested in ideas on further thoughts via the mailing list, and discussion on the way forward at the next Council meeting on 16 Nov. Regards, Bruce Tonkin
Bruce, Beware the dangers of definitions changing over time. There is only limited learning from a reference back to the Names Council procedures. These were for a different Council, at a different time, in a pre-reform world. The term "working group" was intended then to be quite different to what we have been discussing recently. Philip PS This really does underline the need for Council to adopt updated working procedures. Why not do this NOW. The draft has been done for months (or is it years now?) And then change them as required? Lets make an agenda item for our call this week to ask Glen to refresh the current draft and post for comment?
I am speaking as a individual BC rep. Summary of recommendations on Working Group: Support completing the election to elect a single chair Support further discussion and possible clarification of the Working Group Charter in Council call Support asking the Working Group to propose working methods and examine whether and how to expand participation and input to the Working Group and report to Council in Sao Paolo Discussion : Are we making this too complicated, and overlooking the purpose of the WG, or misunderstanding it, or trying to make it more than it is? I think we have a working group already agreed, and an election underway. I would support the Council discussing asking the working group and elected chair to undertake how to and whether to expand the working group, what would be the purpose, etc. and whether the working group can use methods to keep broader groups of interested and relevant individuals or entities informed, such as through transcribing working conf. calls, et, maintaining a public mailing list that members and others can post to, etc. This is a working group launched by Council for a purpose and is therefore not actually the 'old' working group model, as I see it. I do not want Council to lose sight of its own responsibilities for further discussion of policies of relevance to IDNs and find the working group a diversion from Council's overall responsibilities. It seems to me that we may be getting a little diverted into confusion about the role of the Working Group. And perhaps missing some points about the work at hand for the group. I see some Quoting from the Chair's email/pasted in full below: "The working group is attracting plenty of interest, but my concern is that without a clear charter that we are setting false expectations regarding the purpose of this working group. We also need to clearly establish the working group in the context of the President's Advisory Committee, the ccNSO working group, and the new gTLD committee." Two points: I fully support the Council clarifying further the charter of the Working Group. That is within Council's role/ however, we have some work already on that, which led to the agreement to create Council's working group. So, I support having that on the Council agenda and it would be good for councilors to have submitted written thoughts, if possible. That will facilitate the opportunity for dialogue, rather than debate. Changing the election in process: I cannot support changing the election process. And, further, I have not see a consensus emerging that there should be any change in the election cycle underway. The election was opened, and undoubtedly many have voted. I have voted. I am not aware that elections, once started, can be stopped, unless there is some kind of technical problem with the election, failure in the systems, etc. so I'm not in support of changing the decision to have an election after having an announcement of an election; getting two candidates nominated and seconded, and then opening the election. Once the Working Group has a chair, it can meet and it can take into account the input and guidance from Council and relevant other inputs on how it does its work, including but not limited to whether working methods are sufficient to ensure participation and feedback from other groups or other parties into its work, or whether expansion of membership is appropriate. The Working Group could be asked to report back to the Council in Sao Paolo on ideas about membership and participation. Given the diversity of the Working Group as present, I believe that a balanced and pragmatic, and responsible set of ideas can be quickly put forward by the Working Group. First and foremost, can we all keep in mind that this is only ONE effort, and does not replace the work of the Council, the need to discuss policy more at the Council level, and with the focus on understanding the working group in the larger context. I fear that it is easy to confuse the Working group as something magical. I think it has some hard work to do, but nothing magical. :-) -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 9:02 PM To: Council GNSO Cc: rmohan@afilias.info Subject: [council] Additional agenda item for the Council call on 16 Nov - regarding IDN working group Hello All, I would like to add an additional agenda item regarding the GNSO IDN working group. As you know, I chaired the original working group on the assumption that the working group had a very short life. Based on the last Council meetings decision to re-instate the working group with no specific time limit, I wanted to hand over the chair to another person. There have been two candidates that have been nominated by committee members - Ram Mohan and Sophia Bekele. I have thus initiated an email election process based on the existing membership of the working group to put a new chair in place. There are however outstanding issues: - clearly defining the charter of the working group - clarifying the rules for membership I have received some requests from people in the ICANN community that are currently not members of a GNSO constituency, but are members of the general assembly mailing list. So far I have been recommending that these people join one of the existing GNSO constituencies to meet the requirement of a "GNSO volunteer" I have since noticed that the current definition of a working group in: http://www.gnso.icann.org/council/names-proceduresv7.shtml opens up membership to "members of the General Assembly (GA) defined as subscribers to the ga@dnso.org, announce@dnso.org or the GA voting register". I am not sure if this is the Council's intent. The working group is attracting plenty of interest, but my concern is that without a clear charter that we are setting false expectations regarding the purpose of this working group. We also need to clearly establish the working group in the context of the President's Advisory Committee, the ccNSO working group, and the new gTLD committee. It has also been noted that perhaps we should hold off on electing a chair until the above is clearer, and we have done a public call for members etc. One alternative is that we continue with the current election and with the current group of members, and that the elected chair work with the group to finalise a charter and submit that to the GNSO Council for approval. I don't personally have the time to do that, hence my interest in handing over responsibility to someone else. We could limit the "initial" term of the chair to three months, and then if the working group is still operational, we could hold a follow up election. Alternatively if the two candidates are willing, we could simply suggest they be appointed as joint chairs for the purpose of moving the work forward. I am interested in ideas on further thoughts via the mailing list, and discussion on the way forward at the next Council meeting on 16 Nov. Regards, Bruce Tonkin
Marilyn, A few comments inline as follows. --- Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com> wrote:
I am speaking as a individual BC rep.
<snip>
Discussion :
Are we making this too complicated, and overlooking the purpose of the WG, or misunderstanding it, or trying to make it more than it is?
I think we have a working group already agreed, and an election underway.
I'm assuming here that you're just talking about us agreeing to set up a WG, not that the WG as actually formed has been agreed on.
I would support the Council discussing asking the working group and elected chair to undertake how to and whether to expand the working group, what would be the purpose, etc. and whether the working group can use methods to keep broader groups of interested and relevant individuals or entities informed, such as through transcribing working conf. calls, et, maintaining a public mailing list that members and others can post to, etc.
You see Marilyn, it's not just about informing people one-way; it might be that we need their insight, too, and even their expertise on some issues we seem to disqualify in advance.
This is a working group launched by Council for a purpose and is therefore not actually the 'old' working group model, as I see it.
I do not want Council to lose sight of its own responsibilities for further discussion of policies of relevance to IDNs and find the working group a diversion from Council's overall responsibilities.
You might be right here, but that precisely requests that we are clear about the role and the scope of the WG - in other words, its mandate, rules and procedures. Failing us to have been explicit on those, everyone's understanding might carry specific assumptions that are not necessarily shared by the others. It seems to me
that we may be getting a little diverted into confusion about the role of the Working Group. And perhaps missing some points about the work at hand for the group.
<snip>
Changing the election in process: I cannot support changing the election process. And, further, I have not see a consensus emerging that there should be any change in the election cycle underway.
The election was opened, and undoubtedly many have voted. I have voted.
I haven't, and probably won't in the present confusion.
I am not aware that elections, once started, can be stopped, unless there is some kind of technical problem with the election, failure in the systems,
Elections can be stopped for problems other than technical, problems that may be even more important for legitimacy purpose (than the technical ones often would be.) Regards, Mawaki
etc. so I'm not in support of changing the decision to have an election after having an announcement of an election; getting two candidates nominated and seconded, and then opening the election.
Once the Working Group has a chair, it can meet and it can take into account the input and guidance from Council and relevant other inputs on how it does its work, including but not limited to whether working methods are sufficient to ensure participation and feedback from other groups or other parties into its work, or whether expansion of membership is appropriate. The Working Group could be asked to report back to the Council in Sao Paolo on ideas about membership and participation. Given the diversity of the Working Group as present, I believe that a balanced and pragmatic, and responsible set of ideas can be quickly put forward by the Working Group.
First and foremost, can we all keep in mind that this is only ONE effort, and does not replace the work of the Council, the need to discuss policy more at the Council level, and with the focus on understanding the working group in the larger context.
I fear that it is easy to confuse the Working group as something magical. I think it has some hard work to do, but nothing magical. :-)
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 9:02 PM To: Council GNSO Cc: rmohan@afilias.info Subject: [council] Additional agenda item for the Council call on 16 Nov - regarding IDN working group
Hello All,
I would like to add an additional agenda item regarding the GNSO IDN
working group.
As you know, I chaired the original working group on the assumption that
the working group had a very short life.
Based on the last Council meetings decision to re-instate the working
group with no specific time limit, I wanted to hand over the chair to
another person. There have been two candidates that have been nominated
by committee members - Ram Mohan and Sophia Bekele. I have thus
initiated an email election process based on the existing membership of
the working group to put a new chair in place.
There are however outstanding issues:
- clearly defining the charter of the working group
- clarifying the rules for membership
I have received some requests from people in the ICANN community that
are currently not members of a GNSO constituency, but are members of the
general assembly mailing list. So far I have been recommending that
these people join one of the existing GNSO constituencies to meet the
requirement of a "GNSO volunteer" I have since noticed that the
current definition of a working group in:
http://www.gnso.icann.org/council/names-proceduresv7.shtml opens up
membership to "members of the General Assembly (GA) defined as
subscribers to the ga@dnso.org, announce@dnso.org or the GA voting
register". I am not sure if this is the Council's intent.
The working group is attracting plenty of interest, but my concern is
that without a clear charter that we are setting false expectations
regarding the purpose of this working group. We also need to clearly
establish the working group in the context of the President's Advisory
Committee, the ccNSO working group, and the new gTLD committee.
It has also been noted that perhaps we should hold off on electing a
chair until the above is clearer, and we have done a public call for
members etc.
One alternative is that we continue with the current election and with
the current group of members, and that the elected chair work with the
group to finalise a charter and submit that to the GNSO Council for
approval. I don't personally have the time to do that, hence my
interest in handing over responsibility to someone else. We could
limit the "initial" term of the chair to three months, and then if the
working group is still operational, we could hold a follow up election.
Alternatively if the two candidates are willing, we could simply suggest
they be appointed as joint chairs for the purpose of moving the work
forward.
I am interested in ideas on further thoughts via the mailing list, and
discussion on the way forward at the next Council meeting on 16 Nov.
Regards,
Bruce Tonkin
Dear All, Kindly consider this as my two cents on this matter: 1- I am concerned also on Bruce's mention on lack of 'public call' etc, that we may need to do before moving forward with the election. 2- I support the clarification of 'clearly defining the charter' and the rules of membership of the WG. 3- Therefore I would propose to clarify such before election of chair. 4- If we have to elect the chair now, I would not mind Bruce's earlier proposal and Mawaki's to elect a joint chair. Bruce, as the chair, I would appreciate that you convey this message in the council meeing today. Unfortunately, I cannot be on today's call due to urgent matter I have to attend to. Many thanks. Sophia On 15/11/06, Mawaki Chango <ki_chango@yahoo.com> wrote:
Marilyn,
A few comments inline as follows.
--- Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com> wrote:
I am speaking as a individual BC rep.
<snip>
Discussion :
Are we making this too complicated, and overlooking the purpose of the WG, or misunderstanding it, or trying to make it more than it is?
I think we have a working group already agreed, and an election underway.
I'm assuming here that you're just talking about us agreeing to set up a WG, not that the WG as actually formed has been agreed on.
I would support the Council discussing asking the working group and elected chair to undertake how to and whether to expand the working group, what would be the purpose, etc. and whether the working group can use methods to keep broader groups of interested and relevant individuals or entities informed, such as through transcribing working conf. calls, et, maintaining a public mailing list that members and others can post to, etc.
You see Marilyn, it's not just about informing people one-way; it might be that we need their insight, too, and even their expertise on some issues we seem to disqualify in advance.
This is a working group launched by Council for a purpose and is therefore not actually the 'old' working group model, as I see it.
I do not want Council to lose sight of its own responsibilities for further discussion of policies of relevance to IDNs and find the working group a diversion from Council's overall responsibilities.
You might be right here, but that precisely requests that we are clear about the role and the scope of the WG - in other words, its mandate, rules and procedures. Failing us to have been explicit on those, everyone's understanding might carry specific assumptions that are not necessarily shared by the others.
It seems to me
that we may be getting a little diverted into confusion about the role of the Working Group. And perhaps missing some points about the work at hand for the group.
<snip>
Changing the election in process: I cannot support changing the election process. And, further, I have not see a consensus emerging that there should be any change in the election cycle underway.
The election was opened, and undoubtedly many have voted. I have voted.
I haven't, and probably won't in the present confusion.
I am not aware that elections, once started, can be stopped, unless there is some kind of technical problem with the election, failure in the systems,
Elections can be stopped for problems other than technical, problems that may be even more important for legitimacy purpose (than the technical ones often would be.) Regards,
Mawaki
etc. so I'm not in support of changing the decision to have an election after having an announcement of an election; getting two candidates nominated and seconded, and then opening the election.
Once the Working Group has a chair, it can meet and it can take into account the input and guidance from Council and relevant other inputs on how it does its work, including but not limited to whether working methods are sufficient to ensure participation and feedback from other groups or other parties into its work, or whether expansion of membership is appropriate. The Working Group could be asked to report back to the Council in Sao Paolo on ideas about membership and participation. Given the diversity of the Working Group as present, I believe that a balanced and pragmatic, and responsible set of ideas can be quickly put forward by the Working Group.
First and foremost, can we all keep in mind that this is only ONE effort, and does not replace the work of the Council, the need to discuss policy more at the Council level, and with the focus on understanding the working group in the larger context.
I fear that it is easy to confuse the Working group as something magical. I think it has some hard work to do, but nothing magical. :-)
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 9:02 PM To: Council GNSO Cc: rmohan@afilias.info Subject: [council] Additional agenda item for the Council call on 16 Nov - regarding IDN working group
Hello All,
I would like to add an additional agenda item regarding the GNSO IDN
working group.
As you know, I chaired the original working group on the assumption that
the working group had a very short life.
Based on the last Council meetings decision to re-instate the working
group with no specific time limit, I wanted to hand over the chair to
another person. There have been two candidates that have been nominated
by committee members - Ram Mohan and Sophia Bekele. I have thus
initiated an email election process based on the existing membership of
the working group to put a new chair in place.
There are however outstanding issues:
- clearly defining the charter of the working group
- clarifying the rules for membership
I have received some requests from people in the ICANN community that
are currently not members of a GNSO constituency, but are members of the
general assembly mailing list. So far I have been recommending that
these people join one of the existing GNSO constituencies to meet the
requirement of a "GNSO volunteer" I have since noticed that the
current definition of a working group in:
http://www.gnso.icann.org/council/names-proceduresv7.shtml opens up
membership to "members of the General Assembly (GA) defined as
subscribers to the ga@dnso.org, announce@dnso.org or the GA voting
register". I am not sure if this is the Council's intent.
The working group is attracting plenty of interest, but my concern is
that without a clear charter that we are setting false expectations
regarding the purpose of this working group. We also need to clearly
establish the working group in the context of the President's Advisory
Committee, the ccNSO working group, and the new gTLD committee.
It has also been noted that perhaps we should hold off on electing a
chair until the above is clearer, and we have done a public call for
members etc.
One alternative is that we continue with the current election and with
the current group of members, and that the elected chair work with the
group to finalise a charter and submit that to the GNSO Council for
approval. I don't personally have the time to do that, hence my
interest in handing over responsibility to someone else. We could
limit the "initial" term of the chair to three months, and then if the
working group is still operational, we could hold a follow up election.
Alternatively if the two candidates are willing, we could simply suggest
they be appointed as joint chairs for the purpose of moving the work
forward.
I am interested in ideas on further thoughts via the mailing list, and
discussion on the way forward at the next Council meeting on 16 Nov.
Regards,
Bruce Tonkin
Hello Bruce et al. Thanks for clearly formulating before the council the terms of the issues facing the IDN working group. Indeed issues such as:
- clearly defining the charter of the working group - clarifying the rules for membership are not negligible. Unfortunately, I don't think it would make sense that rules for membership be defined after electing the chair, especially if the two problems are being posed concurrently (which is different from having an existing group and its chair, and then deciding later to extend the group.)
In another email sent to the IDN WG list, you say: "I have assumed that constituencies would pass on information about the group. To my knowledge there has been no public call for members." You seem to be right on the public call, but obviously we had different assumptions. In my case, seeing the call to volunteer for the WG in the council spaces only, without further request or clarification on the intent, made me rather assume that it was to be a WG of council members - which I believe is a rather a reasonable assumption in the condition I just recalled. And as a council member and as an IDN WG member, I discovered the membership of the WG only with the announcement of the chair election. Not that I wish to see a sizeable WG; I'd rather agree with you to find a way to keep it fit and workable, but not by sacrifying a transparent and careful design process. In the same email I referred to earlier that you posted to the WG list, you quoted the minutes of the council call where it was decided to reinstate the group: "In moving forward, there was general support for a working group model that would monitor developments in the IETF, receive regular briefing from the other relevant groups working on IDNs, and could advise the Council on next steps..." You may remember that i once wrote something more or less like, if we don't know what this WG is here for and we are not even clear whether it has a purpose, then let's dismantle it altogether. For me the quote above clarifies the mandate that was intended for the WG (at least by those who discussed the item on the call that day,) and I can assure you that this has not seemed to be clear from all what I've heard in this discussion. So it seems on that basis that the WG's role will essentially be to collect information, digest it and advise the Council which will be doing the actual work (policy-related, by definition.) Have we as council agreed, do we agree, to proceed with that mandate for the WG? Whatever the answer to that question, we still need to properly address the confusion about the membership. So if the council thinks we really have a substantial work to do on IDN in the near future, these are my pieces of advice for the way forward: 1) appoint the two nominees to co-chair an interim WG that will expedite the design tasks and process: rules & procedures; will the membership be of councilors, or from beyond the council, and if so how to achieve this while making sure the WG be workable? etc. (note: this might still be a good option in case of the limited mandate quoted above.) 2) suspend the election on the basis of flaw/fault in the design process, fix the membership issue, and resume and complete the election. 3) dropping the WG approach and having the Council as a whole, whenever the time is ripe for it, tackle the IDN policy issues. All for now. Mawaki --- Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> wrote:
Hello All,
I would like to add an additional agenda item regarding the GNSO IDN working group.
As you know, I chaired the original working group on the assumption that the working group had a very short life.
Based on the last Council meetings decision to re-instate the working group with no specific time limit, I wanted to hand over the chair to another person. There have been two candidates that have been nominated by committee members - Ram Mohan and Sophia Bekele. I have thus initiated an email election process based on the existing membership of the working group to put a new chair in place.
There are however outstanding issues: - clearly defining the charter of the working group - clarifying the rules for membership
I have received some requests from people in the ICANN community that are currently not members of a GNSO constituency, but are members of the general assembly mailing list. So far I have been recommending that these people join one of the existing GNSO constituencies to meet the requirement of a "GNSO volunteer" I have since noticed that the current definition of a working group in: http://www.gnso.icann.org/council/names-proceduresv7.shtml opens up membership to "members of the General Assembly (GA) defined as subscribers to the ga@dnso.org, announce@dnso.org or the GA voting register". I am not sure if this is the Council's intent.
The working group is attracting plenty of interest, but my concern is that without a clear charter that we are setting false expectations regarding the purpose of this working group. We also need to clearly establish the working group in the context of the President's Advisory Committee, the ccNSO working group, and the new gTLD committee.
It has also been noted that perhaps we should hold off on electing a chair until the above is clearer, and we have done a public call for members etc.
One alternative is that we continue with the current election and with the current group of members, and that the elected chair work with the group to finalise a charter and submit that to the GNSO Council for approval. I don't personally have the time to do that, hence my interest in handing over responsibility to someone else. We could limit the "initial" term of the chair to three months, and then if the working group is still operational, we could hold a follow up election. Alternatively if the two candidates are willing, we could simply suggest they be appointed as joint chairs for the purpose of moving the work forward.
I am interested in ideas on further thoughts via the mailing list, and discussion on the way forward at the next Council meeting on 16 Nov.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
participants (5)
-
Bruce Tonkin -
Marilyn Cade -
Mawaki Chango -
Philip Sheppard -
Sophia B