On the use of 'fairness'
Hi, To reiterate, and go further, on my comment about not exorcising the word 'fairness' from the frames of reference. I believe that the importance of the concept and term fairness stems from the relative notion of fairness, i.e. something is not fair unless both sides see something as fair from their subjective viewpoint. Nothing can automatically be called fair from one side of an issue. The importance of this is that it keeps every actor aware that they must take the perspective of the other into account. I think that this is also something that falls on the ombus-process if the actors cannot agree on the fairness of something, i.e. it goes to an impartial venue that can take all pints of view into account. Additionally the notion of fairness is set in the core values of ICANN which is supposed to motivate our actions within the organization and the council. To indicate that this notion does not apply to the council or to a review of the council's work may give the appearance of setting ourselves outside the core values. this is probably an appearance we should try to avoid. I also think that item 4(a) under H
Interpretation and examination of the use of concepts used in the By Laws such as “open and transparent manner”, “fairness”, “consensus”, “bottom-up policy development” is required.
indicates that the concepts involved in determining fairness should be explicit and examined. I think this is important as it not only serves to make the word understandable, but then gives the ombus- office criteria it can use when having to determine whether a claim of unfairness is justified. Bascially I think that the requirement is such that in every situation the precise content of what makes something fair or not cannot be defined before hand. the requirement for fairness, forces the council to due diligence in terms of inspecting all sides of every issue. a.
Another definition of* "fairness"* suggests the following attributes: 1.Flexible 2. Achievable 3. Inclusive 4. Respectful I do believe that it is possible to view this process from these "perspectives" Ken Stubbs Avri Doria wrote:
Hi,
To reiterate, and go further, on my comment about not exorcising the word 'fairness' from the frames of reference.
I believe that the importance of the concept and term fairness stems from the relative notion of fairness, i.e. something is not fair unless both sides see something as fair from their subjective viewpoint. Nothing can automatically be called fair from one side of an issue. The importance of this is that it keeps every actor aware that they must take the perspective of the other into account. I think that this is also something that falls on the ombus-process if the actors cannot agree on the fairness of something, i.e. it goes to an impartial venue that can take all pints of view into account.
Additionally the notion of fairness is set in the core values of ICANN which is supposed to motivate our actions within the organization and the council. To indicate that this notion does not apply to the council or to a review of the council's work may give the appearance of setting ourselves outside the core values. this is probably an appearance we should try to avoid.
I also think that item 4(a) under H
Interpretation and examination of the use of concepts used in the By Laws such as “open and transparent manner”, “fairness”, “consensus”, “bottom-up policy development” is required.
indicates that the concepts involved in determining fairness should be explicit and examined. I think this is important as it not only serves to make the word understandable, but then gives the ombus- office criteria it can use when having to determine whether a claim of unfairness is justified.
Bascially I think that the requirement is such that in every situation the precise content of what makes something fair or not cannot be defined before hand. the requirement for fairness, forces the council to due diligence in terms of inspecting all sides of every issue.
a.
I might be missing some of the semantics here but from my understanding of language every single word can be subject to discussions i.e the word hard could be discussed in terms of how hard (stone/steel). Since the word fairness is already mentioned in the bylaws we should take the chance to define, in the course of the evaluation, what fairness means in our context. Best, tom Am 25.08.2005 schrieb Ken Stubbs:
Another definition of* "fairness"* suggests the following attributes: 1.Flexible 2. Achievable 3. Inclusive 4. Respectful
I do believe that it is possible to view this process from these "perspectives"
Ken Stubbs
Avri Doria wrote:
Hi,
To reiterate, and go further, on my comment about not exorcising the word 'fairness' from the frames of reference.
I believe that the importance of the concept and term fairness stems from the relative notion of fairness, i.e. something is not fair unless both sides see something as fair from their subjective viewpoint. Nothing can automatically be called fair from one side of an issue. The importance of this is that it keeps every actor aware that they must take the perspective of the other into account. I think that this is also something that falls on the ombus-process if the actors cannot agree on the fairness of something, i.e. it goes to an impartial venue that can take all pints of view into account.
Additionally the notion of fairness is set in the core values of ICANN which is supposed to motivate our actions within the organization and the council. To indicate that this notion does not apply to the council or to a review of the council's work may give the appearance of setting ourselves outside the core values. this is probably an appearance we should try to avoid.
I also think that item 4(a) under H
Interpretation and examination of the use of concepts used in the By Laws such as “open and transparent manner”, “fairness”, “consensus”, “bottom-up policy development” is required.
indicates that the concepts involved in determining fairness should be explicit and examined. I think this is important as it not only serves to make the word understandable, but then gives the ombus- office criteria it can use when having to determine whether a claim of unfairness is justified.
Bascially I think that the requirement is such that in every situation the precise content of what makes something fair or not cannot be defined before hand. the requirement for fairness, forces the council to due diligence in terms of inspecting all sides of every issue.
a.
Gruss, tom (__) (OO)_____ (oo) /|\ A cow is not entirely full of | |--/ | * milk some of it is hamburger! w w w w
Tom makes a good point about semantics here. I would also like to contribute the following. The by-laws of ICANN are IMPERFECT WORDS written by IMPERFECT BEINGS - this is not criticism but a matter of philosophy. The words of this e-mail merit the same description. Before we get too hung up on assessment of the GNSO in context of the by-laws, let us remember this! Another day, another writer and "fairness" may never have been in the by-laws! However, of course it is in the by-laws and so the question for us is not how to include it in the scope of the GNSO review but what is the relevance to the review. The review seeks to answer two questions: (i) whether the GNSO has a continuing purpose in the ICANN structure (lets assume yes), (ii) and if so, whether any change in structure or operations is desirable to improve its effectiveness. So the question of fairness becomes: What is the relevance of fairness to effectiveness? Philip
On 26 aug 2005, at 11.15, Philip Sheppard wrote:
So the question of fairness becomes: What is the relevance of fairness to effectiveness?
Well it might also have relevance to the first question. In order to know whether GNSO has a purpose, one must be able to define that purpose. And whether it is a body capable of fairness and is a component of overall ICANN fairness would seem, to me, to be pertinent questions. In terms of effectiveness, I think fairness is something that always must temper effectiveness. By some definitions of effectiveness one could be very effective yet unfair. This, it seems to me, would not be a good thing. So when we are looking for ways to judge, or to increase effectiveness, we must take the fairness of the process into account. E.g. it would be very efficient, and hence effective by some definitions, for the GNSO council chair to make all decisions unilaterally and to pass them on to the board. But would that have been fair to the constituencies and the rest of the community? Now, one could use a different definition of effectiveness, and argue that these decisions might not be effective because they would be challenged by those who had been left out of the process, ie. those who thought the process to have been unfair - so in this case fairness may be defined as an essential ingredient for true effectiveness. Likewise if it comes time to consider a new constituency, the notion of fairness would enter the discussion in terms of deciding whether this population was unable to participate due to its lack of a represented constituency. i.e whether they had a fair opportunity to participate in the decision making process. a.
Avri, everything you say is correct but we need to consider practicality. The concern of myself and other Council members is to ensure the GNSO review is done well but does not grow out of proportion to our prime objective of policy development. The more comprehensive the review and the more ill-defined its scope, the less resource (time and money) we have for this objective. I am concerned that we are today launching a GNSO review at a time when 17 out of 20 recommendations dating from last year for improving effectiveness of the GNSO Council (and thus the GNSO) are NOT yet implemented due to lack of resource. If we end up in 2006 with a list of 20 new recommendations that are also not implemented, the effectiveness of the GNSO will be unchanged. Philip
Hi, To change the subject a little, let me address some of the other themes in your message. In many cases, what I have is questions. On 26 aug 2005, at 12.32, Philip Sheppard wrote:
The concern of myself and other Council members is to ensure the GNSO review is done well but does not grow out of proportion to our prime objective of policy development. The more comprehensive the review and the more ill-defined its scope, the less resource (time and money) we have for this objective.
I don't understand how a comprehensive review is more ill-defined. Also isn't this done by an outside body. In which case how does it impinge on our ability to achieve our primary objective, which I assume remains the creation, updating and monitoring of ICANN policy and the fulfillment of requirements for improving GNSO/gTLD practice.
I am concerned that we are today launching a GNSO review at a time when 17 out of 20 recommendations dating from last year for improving effectiveness of the GNSO Council (and thus the GNSO) are NOT yet implemented due to lack of resource.
How is the council going about responding to these 17 unresolved items. Do we have teams or working groups assigned to each of them? I have been on a few calls so far and I do not remember, though perhaps I did not recognize, a time when we went through action items and status updates from working groups engaged in these issues?
If we end up in 2006 with a list of 20 new recommendations that are also not implemented, the effectiveness of the GNSO will be unchanged.
Two thoughts on this. I would hope that we could have completed, or at least initiated solutions for, the current 17 items long before the end of 2006. And if there are another 20 improvements that we (or rather the council at that time) should make, wouldn't it be better to know what these were so that the council could start working on them? I know this may be easy for me to say as a newcomer who is not currently repsonsible for any action items. But I figure I am also fair game for task assignment. a.
With that being said Phillip, there are other methods that we can use to find the answers that we need. Being impossible to actually weigh the sun, scientists turn to indirect methods to find their answer. As I mentioned on the call, this is appears to be a more appropriate option for us as well. Instead of attempting to quantify "fairness" we should be examining the processes and policies within the GNSO and its structure that were set in place to further the goal of "fairness" (or whatever ethereal quality we wish to learn about). If those policies are useful and effective, then we can deduce that we are fulfilling the requirements of "fairness" - without having necessarily defined "fairness". Of course, this will only tell us if we are being fair according to the definition used by those that initially implemented the processes and policies. We can further seek to determine whether or not we need to update these by simply asking the community if the existing policies and processes meet their respective definitions of fair... On 8/26/2005 6:32 AM Philip Sheppard noted that:
Avri, everything you say is correct but we need to consider practicality.
The concern of myself and other Council members is to ensure the GNSO review is done well but does not grow out of proportion to our prime objective of policy development. The more comprehensive the review and the more ill-defined its scope, the less resource (time and money) we have for this objective.
I am concerned that we are today launching a GNSO review at a time when 17 out of 20 recommendations dating from last year for improving effectiveness of the GNSO Council (and thus the GNSO) are NOT yet implemented due to lack of resource.
If we end up in 2006 with a list of 20 new recommendations that are also not implemented, the effectiveness of the GNSO will be unchanged.
Philip
-- Regards, -rwr "In the modern world the intelligence of public opinion is the one indispensable condition for social progress." - Charles W. Eliot (1834 - 1926)
Colleagues I concur with Philip's concern that '... 17 out of 20 recommendations dating from last year for improving effectiveness of the GNSO Council (and thus the GNSO) are NOT yet implemented ...'. However, I question whether we are now constrained by '... lack of resource.' We now have three staff providing support. We have requested information about staff roles and responsibilities and time commitment to GNSO matters. In the absence of same, and until we have that information, I think it is reasonable to assume that we have three full time staff. This seems more than sufficient to make progress on those outstanding items. We need staff to prepare a list of all Council activities, with priorities, resource requirements, resource allocated, timeline and project plan. This list should include all substantive policy projects, contemplated or under action, and the 17 recommendations referred to above. Bruce, perhaps you could request that staff action this as above and add this to the list of agenda items for the forthcoming first administrative call. Thanks, Alick -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard Sent: Friday, 26 August 2005 10:32 p.m. To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] On the use of 'fairness' et al Avri, everything you say is correct but we need to consider practicality. The concern of myself and other Council members is to ensure the GNSO review is done well but does not grow out of proportion to our prime objective of policy development. The more comprehensive the review and the more ill-defined its scope, the less resource (time and money) we have for this objective. I am concerned that we are today launching a GNSO review at a time when 17 out of 20 recommendations dating from last year for improving effectiveness of the GNSO Council (and thus the GNSO) are NOT yet implemented due to lack of resource. If we end up in 2006 with a list of 20 new recommendations that are also not implemented, the effectiveness of the GNSO will be unchanged. Philip
I have just been reviewing Liz Williams' GNSO Phase One paper again and I note that the following Recommendations from Patrick Sharry's review: Recommendation 10: The Chair of the GNSO Council and the VP Supporting Organizations should establish a service level agreement between the GNSO Council and ICANN management that specifies the amount and type of support that is to be provided. Where possible, this should include measures (eg turnaround times for legal opinion, delivery of reports by agreed dates, minutes posted within a certain number of days). The Chair should consult the Council to ensure the targets meet the needs of the Council and its taskforces. The VP Supporting Organizations and Chair of GNSO Council should meet quarterly to review performance measures and report these to the President. I suggest that this service level agreement be a high priority item for the first administrative call. Bruce, would you please ask staff to prepare a draft SLA for consideration and discussion on the first administrative call. I note the recommendation says that 'The Chair should consult the Council to ensure the targets meet the needs of the Council and its taskforces'. As a precursor to this consultation, I request that the staff review the timelines imposed by the PDP process and incorporate draft targets in the draft SLA which are consistent. Bruce, please confirm that you are OK with this and that you have actioned it as requested. Thanks, Alick -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alick Wilson Sent: Tuesday, 30 August 2005 2:23 p.m. To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] Administrative matters Colleagues I concur with Philip's concern that '... 17 out of 20 recommendations dating from last year for improving effectiveness of the GNSO Council (and thus the GNSO) are NOT yet implemented ...'. However, I question whether we are now constrained by '... lack of resource.' We now have three staff providing support. We have requested information about staff roles and responsibilities and time commitment to GNSO matters. In the absence of same, and until we have that information, I think it is reasonable to assume that we have three full time staff. This seems more than sufficient to make progress on those outstanding items. We need staff to prepare a list of all Council activities, with priorities, resource requirements, resource allocated, timeline and project plan. This list should include all substantive policy projects, contemplated or under action, and the 17 recommendations referred to above. Bruce, perhaps you could request that staff action this as above and add this to the list of agenda items for the forthcoming first administrative call. Thanks, Alick -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard Sent: Friday, 26 August 2005 10:32 p.m. To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] On the use of 'fairness' et al Avri, everything you say is correct but we need to consider practicality. The concern of myself and other Council members is to ensure the GNSO review is done well but does not grow out of proportion to our prime objective of policy development. The more comprehensive the review and the more ill-defined its scope, the less resource (time and money) we have for this objective. I am concerned that we are today launching a GNSO review at a time when 17 out of 20 recommendations dating from last year for improving effectiveness of the GNSO Council (and thus the GNSO) are NOT yet implemented due to lack of resource. If we end up in 2006 with a list of 20 new recommendations that are also not implemented, the effectiveness of the GNSO will be unchanged. Philip
Avri: I appreciate your well thought out statement on the term fairness. However, I also found Grant's comments compelling during today's call. So I have spent some time trying to reconcile this apparent difference of opinion. In part I have this spare time because Hurricane Katrina has knocked out my broadband connection, although I fortunately still have electricity. Your opening analysis of fairness being a "relative" notion is in fact I believe directly related to another "relative" notion and that is of trust. Even though the Luxemburg meeting was completed almost six weeks ago, I still think about how the term lack of trust was repeated so many times by so many people. I "think" what some council members fear is that based upon the lack of trust that may still linger in some people's mind, they are concerned that any relative notion of fairness may be one sided. I really believe that is the 8000 pound (3600 kilo) elephant in the room that no one wants to talk about. Now because there remains a lack of trust, the question now turns to how does one engage in an evaluation process where fairness is such a key component. I do not have a simple answer to this question. However, we (ICANN Board, staff, and GNSO Council and its constituencies) have an obligation to make it work for the benefit of the organization as a whole. One of the reasons I am taking such an active interest in this process, is because the GNSO is where I came from and where I will return when my service on the Board has been completed. This is my "home" and I have an direct past, present, and future interest to make sure that this evaluation is done is an fair, open and transparent fashion. The reason I have hope for this process, is that ICANN and the community have been through some tough times in the past, i.e. formation 1999, VeriSign contract renegotiation of 2001, WLS, etc. Despite some of the tension that these events may have generated, the people/stakeholders which are ICANN's greatest asset came together, survived and pushed forward. Based on the call today, I believe it is critical that this evaluation process have clear criteria and methodology for each requirement that we are trying to evaluate. More importantly these criteria and methodology must be in place to prevent the criticism that many of the applicants and community had with regard to Telcordia report. Specifically, that the some of the criteria/methodology used were not clearly announced beforehand. As always I welcome the comments/feedback from the council. Best regards, Michael D. Palage P.S. Broadband connection restored for now :-) -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2005 5:03 PM To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] On the use of 'fairness' Hi, To reiterate, and go further, on my comment about not exorcising the word 'fairness' from the frames of reference. I believe that the importance of the concept and term fairness stems from the relative notion of fairness, i.e. something is not fair unless both sides see something as fair from their subjective viewpoint. Nothing can automatically be called fair from one side of an issue. The importance of this is that it keeps every actor aware that they must take the perspective of the other into account. I think that this is also something that falls on the ombus-process if the actors cannot agree on the fairness of something, i.e. it goes to an impartial venue that can take all pints of view into account. Additionally the notion of fairness is set in the core values of ICANN which is supposed to motivate our actions within the organization and the council. To indicate that this notion does not apply to the council or to a review of the council's work may give the appearance of setting ourselves outside the core values. this is probably an appearance we should try to avoid. I also think that item 4(a) under H
Interpretation and examination of the use of concepts used in the By Laws such as "open and transparent manner", "fairness", "consensus", "bottom-up policy development" is required.
indicates that the concepts involved in determining fairness should be explicit and examined. I think this is important as it not only serves to make the word understandable, but then gives the ombus- office criteria it can use when having to determine whether a claim of unfairness is justified. Bascially I think that the requirement is such that in every situation the precise content of what makes something fair or not cannot be defined before hand. the requirement for fairness, forces the council to due diligence in terms of inspecting all sides of every issue. a.
participants (7)
-
Alick Wilson -
Avri Doria -
Ken Stubbs -
Michael D. Palage -
Philip Sheppard -
Ross Wm. Rader -
Thomas Keller