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 Vancouver meeting. A full project plan is being developed for the process which includes all key dates and milestones. 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 - Brussels Tel: +32 2 234 7874 Fax: +32 2 234 7848 Mob: +61 414 26 9000
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. :-) 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 Vancouver meeting. A full project plan is being developed for the process which includes all key dates and milestones. 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 - Brussels Tel: +32 2 234 7874 Fax: +32 2 234 7848 Mob: +61 414 26 9000
Fellow council members... On a parallel track, I share similiar concerns about adequate time necessary to adequately consider another item recently placed on the agenda. Our Consitiuency has had very limited time to consider the proposed by-law changes which are being placed before the council for our recommendation to the Board. we have not yet even had the opportunity to deliberate & discusss these changes proposed nor have we had the benefit of any legal opinions with respect to both process as well as impact etc.. From a practical perspective, I believe we are all aware that the month of August is historically the time when many are on holiday and, as such, not available to commit themselves to the time necessary to have adequate dialogues regarding items of this nature.. i would certainly hope (as well as recommend), that the council consider providing the various constituencies an adequate time to discuss the proposed changes and provide *"informed"* direction to their council representatives prior to taking any action. Ken Stubbs Marilyn Cade wrote:
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 Vancouver meeting. A full project plan is being developed for the process which includes all key dates and milestones.
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 - Brussels
Tel: +32 2 234 7874
Fax: +32 2 234 7848
Mob: +61 414 26 9000
That is interesting, Ken, but of course, the issues that the bylaws change is addressing is quite another matter, given the in-depth discussions that took place at Luxembourg---and the vote of Council in support of the new registry services consensus policy. All constituencies have had in depth discussions on those matters. ;-) Given that the bylaw changes were posted within the 7 days required notice.. It seems to me that this is a very different issue altogether. It will be helpful to hear what others on the Council think, though. _____ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Ken Stubbs Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2005 12:33 PM To: Marilyn Cade Cc: council@gnso.icann.org; Olof Nordling; Kurt Pritz; John Jeffrey; liz.williams@icann.org Subject: Re: [council] GNSO Review: Phase One Paper Fellow council members... On a parallel track, I share similiar concerns about adequate time necessary to adequately consider another item recently placed on the agenda. Our Consitiuency has had very limited time to consider the proposed by-law changes which are being placed before the council for our recommendation to the Board. we have not yet even had the opportunity to deliberate & discusss these changes proposed nor have we had the benefit of any legal opinions with respect to both process as well as impact etc..
From a practical perspective, I believe we are all aware that the month of August is historically the time when many are on holiday and, as such, not available to commit themselves to the time necessary to have adequate dialogues regarding items of this nature..
i would certainly hope (as well as recommend), that the council consider providing the various constituencies an adequate time to discuss the proposed changes and provide "informed" direction to their council representatives prior to taking any action. Ken Stubbs Marilyn Cade wrote: 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. :-) 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. 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. 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 Vancouver meeting. A full project plan is being developed for the process which includes all key dates and milestones. 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 - Brussels Tel: +32 2 234 7874 Fax: +32 2 234 7848 Mob: +61 414 26 9000
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. :-) 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 Vancouver meeting. A full project plan is being developed for the process which includes all key dates and milestones. 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 - Brussels Tel: +32 2 234 7874 Fax: +32 2 234 7848 Mob: +61 414 26 9000
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. :-) 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 Vancouver meeting. A full project plan is being developed for the process which includes all key dates and milestones. 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 - Brussels Tel: +32 2 234 7874 Fax: +32 2 234 7848 Mob: +61 414 26 9000
participants (3)
-
Ken Stubbs -
Liz Williams -
Marilyn Cade