Goodness, I also nearly snorted my coffee but held it down long enough to look up 'scylla' and 'charybdis'. I was chagrinned to learn these new (to me) words were first used in the ICANN context by the beloved Norwegian Harald Alvestrand back in 2002, a few reform movements back. Who knew? "The current ICANN has attempted to chart a course between the scylla of doing nothing and the charybdis of doing everything;" http://www.alvestrand.no/icann/icann_reform.html On 3 February 2014 17:23, <john@crediblecontext.com> wrote:

Jonathan,

My coffee came through my nose this morning when I read the blueprint from the multistakeholder strategy panel. But, while language like this: "engaging people in meaningful and productive conversations about how to redesign the way ICANN runs itself is difficult because the conversation gets caught, on the one hand, between the scylla of broad generalities and geopolitics without regard to the specifics of ICANN's day-to-day work, and the charybdis of mind-numbing technical detail on the other" is a bit overblown, it also works as mis-direction. There is no argument but that generalities, geopolitics and technical detail are a part of ICANN's life, but I would argue with "broad" and "mind-numbing." That kind of language tips the player's hand.

Further, by pegging effectiveness to the use of expert networks and linking legitimacy to crowdsourcing at each stage of decision making may only hint at the future shape of ICANN but it is clear in its view that the current version is no longer appetizing. I will likely think hard about that as I pack for the trip to Singapore.

Cheers,

Berard

--------- Original Message --------- Subject: [council] FW: Stage 2 Begins: Designing a 21st Century ICANN From: "Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson@afilias.info> Date: 2/3/14 1:12 am To: council@gnso.icann.org

Stage 2 Begins: Designing a 21st Century ICANN

*From:* The ICANN Strategy Panel on Multistakeholder Innovation & The GovLab [mailto:icannmsipanel@thegovlab.org] *Sent:* 31 January 2014 19:01 *To:* jrobinson@afilias.info *Subject:* Stage 2 Begins: Designing a 21st Century ICANN

Hello!

By engaging the stakeholders of the Internet (this really includes everyone!), the ICANN Strategy Panel on Multistakeholder Innovation (the MSI Panel<http://openinggovernment.us6.list-manage.com/track/click?u=1a990feb5c&id=9e2...>) and The Governance Lab @ NYU (The GovLab<http://openinggovernment.us6.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=1a990feb5c&id=d1...>) are working to develop a set of concrete proposals for designing the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) - the public interest organization responsible for coordinating the Internet's Domain Name System (DNS) - for the 21st Century.

We're writing to request your participation in this important initiative and to help us spread the word!

Today launches *Stage 2 **- Proposal Development - *of our online engagement effort aimed at getting *your* input into the Panel's work in order to bring our ideas for evolving ICANN from principle to practice. The Panel has been specifically charged by ICANN's President and CEO with:

· Proposing new models for international engagement, consensus-driven policymaking and institutional structures to support such enhanced functions; and

· Designing processes, tools and platforms that enable the global ICANN community to engage in these new forms of participatory decision-making.

To answer this charter, we launched a three-stage brainstorm initiative on November 19, 2013. We started with *Stage 1: Idea Generation. *The Panel and GovLab launched an *engagement platform <http://openinggovernment.us6.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=1a990feb5c&id=49575264ee&e=32eced4cfd>*asking the global public to share their ideas for what techniques, strategies, tools and platforms ICANN could look to and learn from to help transform itself into an *effective, legitimate and evolving* 21st century global organization.

We now want to take these ideas closer to implementation during Stage 2. To do so, we've shared the *draft proposal blueprint *<http://openinggovernment.us6.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=1a990feb5c&id=b31cd77527&e=32eced4cfd>on the *GovLab Blog *organizing all of our ideas into 16 concrete proposals for ICANN, which we are *opening up to you for discussion. *We want your feedback, input, comments, questions, and suggestions on what we've collected. We've also published our first set of proposals, which include recommendations for ICANN to:

- Leverage expert networking<http://openinggovernment.us6.list-manage.com/track/click?u=1a990feb5c&id=c8d...> ; - Use crowdsourcing during all phases of decisionmaking<http://openinggovernment.us6.list-manage.com/track/click?u=1a990feb5c&id=78c...>; and - Crowdsource oversight and develop standards to measure success<http://openinggovernment.us6.list-manage.com/track/click?u=1a990feb5c&id=757...> .

*Feel free to provide feedback or reactions using comments or the line-by-line annotation tools enabled on the blog.*

You can also see all of these materials aggregated on the GovLab's ICANN project page, online *HERE*<http://openinggovernment.us6.list-manage.com/track/click?u=1a990feb5c&id=e60...> *.*

*Help us spread the word!*

Do you know any people or organizations who would be interested in these proposal topics? *We'd love to get their feedback, too.* Consider doing any of the following:

· Forward this "Call To Action" to colleagues and organizations you know working in these areas who may have ideas or feedback to share on the blog.

· Share our proposal draft links (all accessible *here*<http://openinggovernment.us6.list-manage.com/track/click?u=1a990feb5c&id=166...> *)*, as widely as possible within your networks (e.g., via mailing lists and listservs). Feel free to link to these posts or repost on your website edited to fit your needs!

· Use social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter or Google+ to spread the word about this initiative (use the *#WeCANN *hashtag!).

· To inspire participation and learn how to contribute, watch and share a *video <http://openinggovernment.us6.list-manage.com/track/click?u=1a990feb5c&id=adb2ce10df&e=32eced4cfd>*The GovLab made when we launched this brainstorm.

· Discuss the MSI Panel's work and proposals in your own communities and share your comments and feedback with the us in the blog comments or at icannmsipanel@thegovlab.org<http://openinggovernment.us6.list-manage.com/track/click?u=1a990feb5c&id=c78...> .

Toward the end of February - we will move into the last stage of this brainstorm - *Stage 3: Collaborative Drafting*. Using a *wiki <http://openinggovernment.us6.list-manage.com/track/click?u=1a990feb5c&id=e89c0b7d3f&e=32eced4cfd>*, we will invite collaborative drafting on a first full draft of all proposals that the Panel will then submit to the ICANN CEO, Board and community. So stay tuned!

For more information, visit The GovLab at www.thegovlab.org<http://openinggovernment.us6.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=1a990feb5c&id=6c...>.

Thanks and best,

*The MSI Panel & The GovLab*

unsubscribe from this list<http://openinggovernment.us6.list-manage.com/unsubscribe?u=1a990feb5c&id=a86...> update subscription preferences<http://openinggovernment.us6.list-manage.com/profile?u=1a990feb5c&id=a862b42...>

Though in fairness it was a Norwegian speaker who introduced these (presumably Greek?) words to the debate. In any case, at least you non-English natives have an excuse for not understanding them. ;-) Maria On 3 February 2014 17:46, Gabriela Szlak <gabrielaszlak@gmail.com> wrote:

... And bear in mind that the purpose - in their own words is- :

- *Proposing new models for broad, *inclusive engagement,* consensus-based policymaking and institutional structures to support such enhanced functions; and* - *Designing processes, tools and platforms that enable a global ICANN community to engage in these new forms of participatory decision-making*

Google translator cannot even translate those two words... it feels really strange to talk about global engagement and participatory processes only in English and in a an English that it seems also complex for english speakers to get...

G.

*Gabriela Szlak *

*Skype:* gabrielaszlak

*Twitter: @*GabiSzlak

La información contenida en este e-mail es confidencial. The information in this e-mail is confidential.

2014-02-03 Maria Farrell <maria.farrell@gmail.com>:

Goodness, I also nearly snorted my coffee but held it down long enough to

...

look up 'scylla' and 'charybdis'. I was chagrinned to learn these new (to me) words were first used in the ICANN context by the beloved Norwegian Harald Alvestrand back in 2002, a few reform movements back. Who knew?

"The current ICANN has attempted to chart a course between the scylla of doing nothing and the charybdis of doing everything;" http://www.alvestrand.no/icann/icann_reform.html

On 3 February 2014 17:23, <john@crediblecontext.com> wrote:

...

Jonathan,

My coffee came through my nose this morning when I read the blueprint from the multistakeholder strategy panel. But, while language like this: "engaging people in meaningful and productive conversations about how to redesign the way ICANN runs itself is difficult because the conversation gets caught, on the one hand, between the scylla of broad generalities and geopolitics without regard to the specifics of ICANN's day-to-day work, and the charybdis of mind-numbing technical detail on the other" is a bit overblown, it also works as mis-direction. There is no argument but that generalities, geopolitics and technical detail are a part of ICANN's life, but I would argue with "broad" and "mind-numbing." That kind of language tips the player's hand.

Further, by pegging effectiveness to the use of expert networks and linking legitimacy to crowdsourcing at each stage of decision making may only hint at the future shape of ICANN but it is clear in its view that the current version is no longer appetizing. I will likely think hard about that as I pack for the trip to Singapore.

Cheers,

Berard

--------- Original Message --------- Subject: [council] FW: Stage 2 Begins: Designing a 21st Century ICANN From: "Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson@afilias.info> Date: 2/3/14 1:12 am To: council@gnso.icann.org

Stage 2 Begins: Designing a 21st Century ICANN

*From:* The ICANN Strategy Panel on Multistakeholder Innovation & The GovLab [mailto:icannmsipanel@thegovlab.org] *Sent:* 31 January 2014 19:01 *To:* jrobinson@afilias.info *Subject:* Stage 2 Begins: Designing a 21st Century ICANN

Hello!

By engaging the stakeholders of the Internet (this really includes everyone!), the ICANN Strategy Panel on Multistakeholder Innovation (the MSI Panel<http://openinggovernment.us6.list-manage.com/track/click?u=1a990feb5c&id=9e2...>) and The Governance Lab @ NYU (The GovLab<http://openinggovernment.us6.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=1a990feb5c&id=d1...>) are working to develop a set of concrete proposals for designing the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) - the public interest organization responsible for coordinating the Internet's Domain Name System (DNS) - for the 21st Century.

We're writing to request your participation in this important initiative and to help us spread the word!

Today launches *Stage 2 **- Proposal Development - *of our online engagement effort aimed at getting *your* input into the Panel's work in order to bring our ideas for evolving ICANN from principle to practice. The Panel has been specifically charged by ICANN's President and CEO with:

· Proposing new models for international engagement, consensus-driven policymaking and institutional structures to support such enhanced functions; and

· Designing processes, tools and platforms that enable the global ICANN community to engage in these new forms of participatory decision-making.

To answer this charter, we launched a three-stage brainstorm initiative on November 19, 2013. We started with *Stage 1: Idea Generation. *The Panel and GovLab launched an *engagement platform <http://openinggovernment.us6.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=1a990feb5c&id=49575264ee&e=32eced4cfd>*asking the global public to share their ideas for what techniques, strategies, tools and platforms ICANN could look to and learn from to help transform itself into an *effective, legitimate and evolving* 21st century global organization.

We now want to take these ideas closer to implementation during Stage 2. To do so, we've shared the *draft proposal blueprint *<http://openinggovernment.us6.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=1a990feb5c&id=b31cd77527&e=32eced4cfd>on the *GovLab Blog *organizing all of our ideas into 16 concrete proposals for ICANN, which we are *opening up to you for discussion. *We want your feedback, input, comments, questions, and suggestions on what we've collected. We've also published our first set of proposals, which include recommendations for ICANN to:

- Leverage expert networking<http://openinggovernment.us6.list-manage.com/track/click?u=1a990feb5c&id=c8d...> ; - Use crowdsourcing during all phases of decisionmaking<http://openinggovernment.us6.list-manage.com/track/click?u=1a990feb5c&id=78c...>; and - Crowdsource oversight and develop standards to measure success<http://openinggovernment.us6.list-manage.com/track/click?u=1a990feb5c&id=757...> .

*Feel free to provide feedback or reactions using comments or the line-by-line annotation tools enabled on the blog.*

You can also see all of these materials aggregated on the GovLab's ICANN project page, online *HERE*<http://openinggovernment.us6.list-manage.com/track/click?u=1a990feb5c&id=e60...> *.*

*Help us spread the word!*

Do you know any people or organizations who would be interested in these proposal topics? *We'd love to get their feedback, too.* Consider doing any of the following:

· Forward this "Call To Action" to colleagues and organizations you know working in these areas who may have ideas or feedback to share on the blog.

· Share our proposal draft links (all accessible *here*<http://openinggovernment.us6.list-manage.com/track/click?u=1a990feb5c&id=166...> *)*, as widely as possible within your networks (e.g., via mailing lists and listservs). Feel free to link to these posts or repost on your website edited to fit your needs!

· Use social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter or Google+ to spread the word about this initiative (use the *#WeCANN *hashtag!).

· To inspire participation and learn how to contribute, watch and share a *video <http://openinggovernment.us6.list-manage.com/track/click?u=1a990feb5c&id=adb2ce10df&e=32eced4cfd>*The GovLab made when we launched this brainstorm.

· Discuss the MSI Panel's work and proposals in your own communities and share your comments and feedback with the us in the blog comments or at icannmsipanel@thegovlab.org<http://openinggovernment.us6.list-manage.com/track/click?u=1a990feb5c&id=c78...> .

Toward the end of February - we will move into the last stage of this brainstorm - *Stage 3: Collaborative Drafting*. Using a *wiki <http://openinggovernment.us6.list-manage.com/track/click?u=1a990feb5c&id=e89c0b7d3f&e=32eced4cfd>*, we will invite collaborative drafting on a first full draft of all proposals that the Panel will then submit to the ICANN CEO, Board and community. So stay tuned!

For more information, visit The GovLab at www.thegovlab.org<http://openinggovernment.us6.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=1a990feb5c&id=6c...>.

Thanks and best,

*The MSI Panel & The GovLab*

unsubscribe from this list<http://openinggovernment.us6.list-manage.com/unsubscribe?u=1a990feb5c&id=a86...> update subscription preferences<http://openinggovernment.us6.list-manage.com/profile?u=1a990feb5c&id=a862b42...>

Thanks All, Personally, I can see no reason to use such words. That symbolic detail aside, this does throw up some critical points about how we engage with this work. I have a call planned this week to talk one-to-one with Beth Novek in order to give some feedback. I’ll obviously take into account any input from the Council. In addition, the Council needs to think about any other feedback, responses or engagement with the work of this panel. Jonathan From: Gabriela Szlak [mailto:gabrielaszlak@gmail.com] Sent: 03 February 2014 17:46 To: Maria Farrell Cc: John Berard; Jonathan Robinson; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] About Designing a 21st Century ICANN ... And bear in mind that the purpose - in their own words is- : · Proposing new models for broad, inclusive engagement, consensus-based policymaking and institutional structures to support such enhanced functions; and · Designing processes, tools and platforms that enable a global ICANN community to engage in these new forms of participatory decision-making Google translator cannot even translate those two words... it feels really strange to talk about global engagement and participatory processes only in English and in a an English that it seems also complex for english speakers to get... G. Gabriela Szlak Skype: gabrielaszlak Twitter: @GabiSzlak La información contenida en este e-mail es confidencial. The information in this e-mail is confidential. 2014-02-03 Maria Farrell <maria.farrell@gmail.com>: Goodness, I also nearly snorted my coffee but held it down long enough to look up 'scylla' and 'charybdis'. I was chagrinned to learn these new (to me) words were first used in the ICANN context by the beloved Norwegian Harald Alvestrand back in 2002, a few reform movements back. Who knew? "The current ICANN has attempted to chart a course between the scylla of doing nothing and the charybdis of doing everything;" http://www.alvestrand.no/icann/icann_reform.html On 3 February 2014 17:23, <john@crediblecontext.com> wrote: Jonathan, My coffee came through my nose this morning when I read the blueprint from the multistakeholder strategy panel. But, while language like this: "engaging people in meaningful and productive conversations about how to redesign the way ICANN runs itself is difficult because the conversation gets caught, on the one hand, between the scylla of broad generalities and geopolitics without regard to the specifics of ICANN’s day-to-day work, and the charybdis of mind-numbing technical detail on the other" is a bit overblown, it also works as mis-direction. There is no argument but that generalities, geopolitics and technical detail are a part of ICANN's life, but I would argue with "broad" and "mind-numbing." That kind of language tips the player's hand. Further, by pegging effectiveness to the use of expert networks and linking legitimacy to crowdsourcing at each stage of decision making may only hint at the future shape of ICANN but it is clear in its view that the current version is no longer appetizing. I will likely think hard about that as I pack for the trip to Singapore. Cheers, Berard --------- Original Message --------- Subject: [council] FW: Stage 2 Begins: Designing a 21st Century ICANN From: "Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson@afilias.info> Date: 2/3/14 1:12 am To: council@gnso.icann.org Stage 2 Begins: Designing a 21st Century ICANN From: The ICANN Strategy Panel on Multistakeholder Innovation & The GovLab [mailto:icannmsipanel@thegovlab.org] Sent: 31 January 2014 19:01 To: jrobinson@afilias.info Subject: Stage 2 Begins: Designing a 21st Century ICANN <https://gallery.mailchimp.com/1a990feb5c/images/logo_icann_ideascale_3_.png

Hello! By engaging the stakeholders of the Internet (this really includes everyone!), the ICANN Strategy Panel on Multistakeholder Innovation ( <http://openinggovernment.us6.list-manage.com/track/click?u=1a990feb5c&id=9e 2fe95b04&e=32eced4cfd> the MSI Panel) and The Governance Lab @ NYU ( <http://openinggovernment.us6.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=1a990feb5c&id=d 1a6e896d6&e=32eced4cfd> The GovLab) are working to develop a set of concrete proposals for designing the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) – the public interest organization responsible for coordinating the Internet’s Domain Name System (DNS) – for the 21st Century. We’re writing to request your participation in this important initiative and to help us spread the word! Today launches Stage 2 – Proposal Development – of our online engagement effort aimed at getting your input into the Panel’s work in order to bring our ideas for evolving ICANN from principle to practice. The Panel has been specifically charged by ICANN’s President and CEO with: · Proposing new models for international engagement, consensus-driven policymaking and institutional structures to support such enhanced functions; and · Designing processes, tools and platforms that enable the global ICANN community to engage in these new forms of participatory decision-making. To answer this charter, we launched a three-stage brainstorm initiative on November 19, 2013. We started with Stage 1: Idea Generation. The Panel and GovLab launched an <http://openinggovernment.us6.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=1a990feb5c&id=4 9575264ee&e=32eced4cfd> engagement platform asking the global public to share their ideas for what techniques, strategies, tools and platforms ICANN could look to and learn from to help transform itself into an effective, legitimate and evolving 21st century global organization. We now want to take these ideas closer to implementation during Stage 2. To do so, we’ve shared the <http://openinggovernment.us6.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=1a990feb5c&id=b 31cd77527&e=32eced4cfd> draft proposal blueprint on the GovLab Blog organizing all of our ideas into 16 concrete proposals for ICANN, which we are opening up to you for discussion. We want your feedback, input, comments, questions, and suggestions on what we’ve collected. We’ve also published our first set of proposals, which include recommendations for ICANN to: * <http://openinggovernment.us6.list-manage.com/track/click?u=1a990feb5c&id=c8 d26b0537&e=32eced4cfd> Leverage expert networking; * <http://openinggovernment.us6.list-manage.com/track/click?u=1a990feb5c&id=78 cb16e898&e=32eced4cfd> Use crowdsourcing during all phases of decisionmaking; and * <http://openinggovernment.us6.list-manage.com/track/click?u=1a990feb5c&id=75 796fa362&e=32eced4cfd> Crowdsource oversight and develop standards to measure success. Feel free to provide feedback or reactions using comments or the line-by-line annotation tools enabled on the blog. You can also see all of these materials aggregated on the GovLab's ICANN project page, online <http://openinggovernment.us6.list-manage.com/track/click?u=1a990feb5c&id=e6 06d3f2d6&e=32eced4cfd> HERE. Help us spread the word! Do you know any people or organizations who would be interested in these proposal topics? We’d love to get their feedback, too. Consider doing any of the following: · Forward this “Call To Action” to colleagues and organizations you know working in these areas who may have ideas or feedback to share on the blog. · Share our proposal draft links (all accessible <http://openinggovernment.us6.list-manage.com/track/click?u=1a990feb5c&id=16 6e90c780&e=32eced4cfd> here), as widely as possible within your networks (e.g., via mailing lists and listservs). Feel free to link to these posts or repost on your website edited to fit your needs! · Use social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter or Google+ to spread the word about this initiative (use the #WeCANN hashtag!). · To inspire participation and learn how to contribute, watch and share a <http://openinggovernment.us6.list-manage.com/track/click?u=1a990feb5c&id=ad b2ce10df&e=32eced4cfd> video The GovLab made when we launched this brainstorm. · Discuss the MSI Panel’s work and proposals in your own communities and share your comments and feedback with the us in the blog comments or at <http://openinggovernment.us6.list-manage.com/track/click?u=1a990feb5c&id=c7 8e16b652&e=32eced4cfd> icannmsipanel@thegovlab.org. Toward the end of February – we will move into the last stage of this brainstorm – Stage 3: Collaborative Drafting. Using a <http://openinggovernment.us6.list-manage.com/track/click?u=1a990feb5c&id=e8 9c0b7d3f&e=32eced4cfd> wiki, we will invite collaborative drafting on a first full draft of all proposals that the Panel will then submit to the ICANN CEO, Board and community. So stay tuned! For more information, visit The GovLab at <http://openinggovernment.us6.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=1a990feb5c&id=6 c7b575816&e=32eced4cfd> www.thegovlab.org. Thanks and best, The MSI Panel & The GovLab <http://openinggovernment.us6.list-manage.com/unsubscribe?u=1a990feb5c&id=a8 62b42724&e=32eced4cfd&c=15654e31a5> unsubscribe from this list <http://openinggovernment.us6.list-manage.com/profile?u=1a990feb5c&id=a862b4 2724&e=32eced4cfd> update subscription preferences <http://openinggovernment.us6.list-manage.com/track/open.php?u=1a990feb5c&id =15654e31a5&e=32eced4cfd>

Mikey, et. al., The danger (if I can call it that) here is that any question will be painted as opposition. I look forward to the report from Jonathan on his meeting with Beth. Berard --------- Original Message --------- Subject: Re: [council] About Designing a 21st Century ICANN From: "Mike O'Connor" <mike@haven2.com> Date: 2/3/14 12:14 pm To: jrobinson@afilias.info Cc: "Gabriela Szlak" <gabrielaszlak@gmail.com>, "Maria Farrell" <maria.farrell@gmail.com>, "John Berard" <john@crediblecontext.com>, "Council" <council@gnso.icann.org> Phil Corwin just posted a lengthy discussion on the Brazil meeting and he mentions this study down toward the bottom of his piece. here's a link to the whole article http://www.circleid.com/posts/20140203_downsizing_sao_paulo/ and here's the quote that caught my eye The Singapore ICANN meeting occurs midway in that period, and is likely to devote a considerable amount of time and attention to discussing Sao Paulo, just as occurred in the final 2013 ICANN meeting in Buenos Aires - although unresolved technical and policy issues related to the new gTLD program, as well as forthcoming output from the five Presidential Strategy Panels will also share the spotlight. The first of those Panel reports "The Quest for a 21st Century ICANN: A Blueprint”, has just emerged from the ICANN Strategy Panel on Multistakeholder Innovation and it proposes what may prove to be rather controversial changes in the operation of ICANN's own multistakeholder process - including the establishment of an Internet Governance Laboratory that "would function as a Governance Experimentation Collaborative aka a Skunk Works among all the Internet governance organizations", crowdsourcing each stage of ICANN decision-making, and a recommendation that: ICANN should therefore experiment with running parallel processes for one year side by side with existing stakeholder groups to prepare for their possible phase-out in some cases. For instance, ICANN could pilot organizing participants topically rather than by currently existing constituency groups (defined by interest). Within such an experiment, the crowdsourcing practices described above can be used as alternatives and complements to existing stakeholder group practices. Many ICANN constituencies were already concerned that the GNSO was being made less relevant by top-down management decision-making (as evidenced by the announcement of the Strategy Panels absent any prior discussion with the community) and that GNSO review had been delayed, and may well take strong exception to their replacement of their function, and their value as recognized long-term interest groups, by temporary ad hoc issue entities. On Feb 3, 2014, at 12:24 PM, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info> wrote: Thanks All, Personally, I can see no reason to use such words. That symbolic detail aside, this does throw up some critical points about how we engage with this work. I have a call planned this week to talk one-to-one with Beth Novek in order to give some feedback. I'll obviously take into account any input from the Council. In addition, the Council needs to think about any other feedback, responses or engagement with the work of this panel. Jonathan From: Gabriela Szlak [mailto:gabrielaszlak@gmail.com] Sent: 03 February 2014 17:46 To: Maria Farrell Cc: John Berard; Jonathan Robinson; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] About Designing a 21st Century ICANN ... And bear in mind that the purpose - in their own words is- : · Proposing new models for broad, inclusive engagement, consensus-based policymaking and institutional structures to support such enhanced functions; and · Designing processes, tools and platforms that enable a global ICANN community to engage in these new forms of participatory decision-making Google translator cannot even translate those two words... it feels really strange to talk about global engagement and participatory processes only in English and in a an English that it seems also complex for english speakers to get... G. Gabriela Szlak Skype: gabrielaszlak Twitter: @GabiSzlak La información contenida en este e-mail es confidencial. The information in this e-mail is confidential. 2014-02-03 Maria Farrell <maria.farrell@gmail.com>: Goodness, I also nearly snorted my coffee but held it down long enough to look up 'scylla' and 'charybdis'. I was chagrinned to learn these new (to me) words were first used in the ICANN context by the beloved Norwegian Harald Alvestrand back in 2002, a few reform movements back. Who knew? "The current ICANN has attempted to chart a course between the scylla of doing nothing and the charybdis of doing everything;" http://www.alvestrand.no/icann/icann_reform.html On 3 February 2014 17:23, <john@crediblecontext.com> wrote: Jonathan, My coffee came through my nose this morning when I read the blueprint from the multistakeholder strategy panel. But, while language like this: "engaging people in meaningful and productive conversations about how to redesign the way ICANN runs itself is difficult because the conversation gets caught, on the one hand, between the scylla of broad generalities and geopolitics without regard to the specifics of ICANN's day-to-day work, and the charybdis of mind-numbing technical detail on the other" is a bit overblown, it also works as mis-direction. There is no argument but that generalities, geopolitics and technical detail are a part of ICANN's life, but I would argue with "broad" and "mind-numbing." That kind of language tips the player's hand. Further, by pegging effectiveness to the use of expert networks and linking legitimacy to crowdsourcing at each stage of decision making may only hint at the future shape of ICANN but it is clear in its view that the current version is no longer appetizing. I will likely think hard about that as I pack for the trip to Singapore. Cheers, Berard --------- Original Message --------- Subject: [council] FW: Stage 2 Begins: Designing a 21st Century ICANN From: "Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson@afilias.info> Date: 2/3/14 1:12 am To: council@gnso.icann.org Stage 2 Begins: Designing a 21st Century ICANN From: The ICANN Strategy Panel on Multistakeholder Innovation & The GovLab [mailto:icannmsipanel@thegovlab.org] Sent: 31 January 2014 19:01 To: jrobinson@afilias.info Subject: Stage 2 Begins: Designing a 21st Century ICANN Hello! By engaging the stakeholders of the Internet (this really includes everyone!), the ICANN Strategy Panel on Multistakeholder Innovation (the MSI Panel) and The Governance Lab @ NYU (The GovLab) are working to develop a set of concrete proposals for designing the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) - the public interest organization responsible for coordinating the Internet's Domain Name System (DNS) - for the 21st Century. We're writing to request your participation in this important initiative and to help us spread the word! Today launches Stage 2 - Proposal Development -of our online engagement effort aimed at getting your input into the Panel's work in order to bring our ideas for evolving ICANN from principle to practice. The Panel has been specifically charged by ICANN's President and CEO with: · Proposing new models for international engagement, consensus-driven policymaking and institutional structures to support such enhanced functions; and · Designing processes, tools and platforms that enable the global ICANN community to engage in these new forms of participatory decision-making. To answer this charter, we launched a three-stage brainstorm initiative on November 19, 2013. We started with Stage 1: Idea Generation. The Panel and GovLab launched an engagement platform asking the global public to share their ideas for what techniques, strategies, tools and platforms ICANN could look to and learn from to help transform itself into an effective, legitimate and evolving 21st century global organization. We now want to take these ideas closer to implementation during Stage 2. To do so, we've shared the draft proposal blueprint on the GovLab Blog organizing all of our ideas into 16 concrete proposals for ICANN, which we are opening up to you for discussion. We want your feedback, input, comments, questions, and suggestions on what we've collected. We've also published our first set of proposals, which include recommendations for ICANN to: Leverage expert networking; Use crowdsourcing during all phases of decisionmaking; and Crowdsource oversight and develop standards to measure success. Feel free to provide feedback or reactions using comments or the line-by-line annotation tools enabled on the blog. You can also see all of these materials aggregated on the GovLab's ICANN project page, online HERE. Help us spread the word! Do you know any people or organizations who would be interested in these proposal topics? We'd love to get their feedback, too. Consider doing any of the following: · Forward this “Call To Action” to colleagues and organizations you know working in these areas who may have ideas or feedback to share on the blog. · Share our proposal draft links (all accessible here), as widely as possible within your networks (e.g., via mailing lists and listservs). Feel free to link to these posts or repost on your website edited to fit your needs! · Use social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter or Google+ to spread the word about this initiative (use the #WeCANN hashtag!). · To inspire participation and learn how to contribute, watch and share a video The GovLab made when we launched this brainstorm. · Discuss the MSI Panel's work and proposals in your own communities and share your comments and feedback with the us in the blog comments or at icannmsipanel@thegovlab.org. Toward the end of February - we will move into the last stage of this brainstorm - Stage 3: Collaborative Drafting. Using a wiki, we will invite collaborative drafting on a first full draft of all proposals that the Panel will then submit to the ICANN CEO, Board and community. So stay tuned! For more information, visit The GovLab at www.thegovlab.org. Thanks and best, The MSI Panel & The GovLab unsubscribe from this list update subscription preferences PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)

Dear Friends Greetings. I have now read the report twice and I think this report merits an extended reply by the GNSO. I will refrain from derisory comments about the report as far as a I can, only one, the first page looks like IG buzzword bingo on steroids and like steroids it replaces substance with short term illusions! A good example is the first buzzword "crowdsource". Crowdsource is a good thing, but as it is used in the report it is just a distraction the real problem. The problem of IG in general and of ICANN in particular is not a lack of participation, it is not even a question of language and acronyms. The uncomfortable fact remains true that Cyberspacetoday resembles a country where 1% of the population governs 99% of the population and 98% of these don't even know that the 1% exist! This represents a real legitimacy problem for all current IG processes. Crowd sourcing is only real and legitimateif it is based on knowledge that is available to everybody in appropriate forms. Everybody needs to be able to be in the crowd and not just a self-elected elite. "The report says: (page4), "For an institution to merit the peoples trust, it first has to trust its people". The people we are talking about here is the global Internet user community, all of them. Trust can only come when all the people know their rights and responsibilities. In the case of IG the responsibility to inform all is not simply discharged by awareness campaigns and nice pictures, but by demonstrating the relevance of IG to every level of its user community. People engage with things only if they are relevant to them, awareness is a result of relevance, empowerment and trust are the result of trusting the internet users in understanding the true significance and deep relevance of IG in all our lives. (Mikey, here is I think also part of the answer to your question regarding getting people involved into the Wgs, its not the language, its not the time, its that we have to find a way to make the WG topics relevant to a large number of people. This will not happen if we wait that people come to us, we need to get out to them).IG institutions can only be legitimate and successful if they put the awareness building and empowerment at the center of their thinking and doing. All governance structures for Cyberspace need to be user, not expert group centric. Accountability can only come from the awareness of all what IG is accountable for. Transparency in contracts and processes only makes sense when all understand what the contracts are about. Innovation has to come from informed participation based on relevance not engineered organizational processes. I am surprised by the liberal recommendation by the report of on-line tools that are only available to an elite and not the average online user in a developing country. Like the whole report, these recommendations reflect a first world centered view on IG and technology. Are other councilors also disturbed by the liberal use in the report of the "ICANN should..." phrase followed even sometimes by a time line and the clear indication that the expectation is on speedy implementation without much discussion and control? Maybe the authors of the report should be the first who take their own recommendations serious:"In the future, we need to eschew the kind of self-serious pomposity that gets in the way of change and embrace humility and fallibility as touchstones to progress". Wise words, well spoken, unfortunately completely ignored in the very same report. Happy to work with fellow councilors on a more detailed reply. Yours Klaus On 2/3/2014 7:24 PM, Jonathan Robinson wrote:

Thanks All,

Personally, I can see no reason to use such words. That symbolic detail aside, this does throw up some critical points about how we engage with this work.

I have a call planned this week to talk one-to-one with Beth Novek in order to give some feedback. I'll obviously take into account any input from the Council.

In addition, the Council needs to think about any other feedback, responses or engagement with the work of this panel.

Jonathan

*From:*Gabriela Szlak [mailto:gabrielaszlak@gmail.com] *Sent:* 03 February 2014 17:46 *To:* Maria Farrell *Cc:* John Berard; Jonathan Robinson; council@gnso.icann.org *Subject:* Re: [council] About Designing a 21st Century ICANN

... And bear in mind that the purpose - in their own words is- :

·/Proposing new models for broad, /inclusive engagement,/consensus-based policymaking and institutional structures to support such enhanced functions; and/

·/Designing processes, tools and platforms that //enable a global ICANN community to engage//in these new forms of participatory decision-making/

Google translator cannot even translate those two words... it feels really strange to talk about global engagement and participatory processes only in English and in a an English that it seems also complex for english speakers to get...

G.

*Gabriela Szlak *

*Skype:* gabrielaszlak

*Twitter: @*GabiSzlak

La información contenida en este e-mail es confidencial.

The information in this e-mail is confidential.

2014-02-03 Maria Farrell <maria.farrell@gmail.com <mailto:maria.farrell@gmail.com>>:

Goodness, I also nearly snorted my coffee but held it down long enough to look up 'scylla' and 'charybdis'. I was chagrinned to learn these new (to me) words were first used in the ICANN context by the beloved Norwegian Harald Alvestrand back in 2002, a few reform movements back. Who knew?

"The current ICANN has attempted to chart a course between the scylla of doing nothing and the charybdis of doing everything;" http://www.alvestrand.no/icann/icann_reform.html

On 3 February 2014 17:23, <john@crediblecontext.com <mailto:john@crediblecontext.com>> wrote:

Jonathan,

My coffee came through my nose this morning when I read the blueprint from the multistakeholder strategy panel. But, while language like this: "engaging people in meaningful and productive conversations about how to redesign the way ICANN runs itself is difficult because the conversation gets caught, on the one hand, between the scylla of broad generalities and geopolitics without regard to the specifics of ICANN's day-to-day work, and the charybdis of mind-numbing technical detail on the other" is a bit overblown, it also works as mis-direction. There is no argument but that generalities, geopolitics and technical detail are a part of ICANN's life, but I would argue with "broad" and "mind-numbing." That kind of language tips the player's hand.

Further, by pegging effectiveness to the use of expert networks and linking legitimacy to crowdsourcing at each stage of decision making may only hint at the future shape of ICANN but it is clear in its view that the current version is no longer appetizing. I will likely think hard about that as I pack for the trip to Singapore.

Cheers,

Berard

--------- Original Message ---------

Subject: [council] FW: Stage 2 Begins: Designing a 21st Century ICANN From: "Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson@afilias.info <mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>> Date: 2/3/14 1:12 am To: council@gnso.icann.org <mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>

Stage 2 Begins: Designing a 21st Century ICANN

*From:*The ICANN Strategy Panel on Multistakeholder Innovation & The GovLab [mailto:icannmsipanel@thegovlab.org <mailto:icannmsipanel@thegovlab.org>] *Sent:* 31 January 2014 19:01 *To:* jrobinson@afilias.info <mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info> *Subject:* Stage 2 Begins: Designing a 21st Century ICANN

Hello!

By engaging the stakeholders of the Internet (this really includes everyone!), the ICANN Strategy Panel on Multistakeholder Innovation (the MSI Panel <http://openinggovernment.us6.list-manage.com/track/click?u=1a990feb5c&id=9e2...>) and The Governance Lab @ NYU (The GovLab <http://openinggovernment.us6.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=1a990feb5c&id=d1...>) are working to develop a set of concrete proposals for designing the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) -- the public interest organization responsible for coordinating the Internet's Domain Name System (DNS) -- for the 21st Century.

We're writing to request your participation in this important initiative and to help us spread the word!

Today launches */Stage 2 /*/--/*/Proposal Development /*/--/*//*of our online engagement effort aimed at getting *your*input into the Panel's work in order to bring our ideas for evolving ICANN from principle to practice. The Panel has been specifically charged by ICANN's President and CEO with:

·Proposing new models for international engagement, consensus-driven policymaking and institutional structures to support such enhanced functions; and

·Designing processes, tools and platforms that enable the global ICANN community to engage in these new forms of participatory decision-making.

To answer this charter, we launched a three-stage brainstorm initiative on November 19, 2013. We started with *Stage 1: Idea Generation. *The Panel and GovLab launched an *engagement platform <http://openinggovernment.us6.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=1a990feb5c&id=49575264ee&e=32eced4cfd>* asking the global public to share their ideas for what techniques, strategies, tools and platforms ICANN could look to and learn from to help transform itself into an /effective, legitimate and evolving/21st century global organization.

We now want to take these ideas closer to implementation during Stage 2. To do so, we've shared the *draft proposal blueprint * <http://openinggovernment.us6.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=1a990feb5c&id=b31cd77527&e=32eced4cfd>on the /GovLab Blog /organizing all of our ideas into 16 concrete proposals for ICANN, which we are *opening up to you for discussion. *We want your feedback, input, comments, questions, and suggestions on what we've collected. We've also published our first set of proposals, which include recommendations for ICANN to:

* Leverage expert networking <http://openinggovernment.us6.list-manage.com/track/click?u=1a990feb5c&id=c8d...>; * Use crowdsourcing during all phases of decisionmaking <http://openinggovernment.us6.list-manage.com/track/click?u=1a990feb5c&id=78c...>; and * Crowdsource oversight and develop standards to measure success <http://openinggovernment.us6.list-manage.com/track/click?u=1a990feb5c&id=757...>.

*Feel free to provide feedback or reactions using comments or the line-by-line annotation tools enabled on the blog.*

You can also see all of these materials aggregated on the GovLab's ICANN project page, online */HERE/* <http://openinggovernment.us6.list-manage.com/track/click?u=1a990feb5c&id=e606d3f2d6&e=32eced4cfd>*.*

*Help us spread the word!*

Do you know any people or organizations who would be interested in these proposal topics? *We'd love to get their feedback, too.*Consider doing any of the following:

·Forward this "Call To Action" to colleagues and organizations you know working in these areas who may have ideas or feedback to share on the blog.

·Share our proposal draft links (all accessible *here* <http://openinggovernment.us6.list-manage.com/track/click?u=1a990feb5c&id=166e90c780&e=32eced4cfd>*)*, as widely as possible within your networks (e.g., via mailing lists and listservs). Feel free to link to these posts or repost on your website edited to fit your needs!

·Use social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter or Google+ to spread the word about this initiative (use the *#WeCANN *hashtag!).

·To inspire participation and learn how to contribute, watch and share a *video <http://openinggovernment.us6.list-manage.com/track/click?u=1a990feb5c&id=adb2ce10df&e=32eced4cfd>* The GovLab made when we launched this brainstorm.

·Discuss the MSI Panel's work and proposals in your own communities and share your comments and feedback with the us in the blog comments or at icannmsipanel@thegovlab.org <http://openinggovernment.us6.list-manage.com/track/click?u=1a990feb5c&id=c78...>.

Toward the end of February -- we will move into the last stage of this brainstorm -- *Stage 3: Collaborative Drafting*. Using a *wiki <http://openinggovernment.us6.list-manage.com/track/click?u=1a990feb5c&id=e89c0b7d3f&e=32eced4cfd>*, we will invite collaborative drafting on a first full draft of all proposals that the Panel will then submit to the ICANN CEO, Board and community. So stay tuned!

For more information, visit The GovLab at www.thegovlab.org <http://openinggovernment.us6.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=1a990feb5c&id=6c...>.

Thanks and best,

/The MSI Panel & The GovLab/

unsubscribe from this list <http://openinggovernment.us6.list-manage.com/unsubscribe?u=1a990feb5c&id=a86...> update subscription preferences <http://openinggovernment.us6.list-manage.com/profile?u=1a990feb5c&id=a862b42...>

Thanks Mikey and others who have contributed to this thread. I doubt anyone would take issue with increased and broader based participation. Nor some blue skies thinking as to how to achieve that. I really like some of your concepts around different levels of participation, use of mentoring etc. The challenge (I think) we have here is that the blue skies thinking is taking place with no apparent reference to the GNSO including current purpose, function and mechanics. This operation in isolation (top-down?) is one significant concern. Jonathan From: Mike O'Connor [mailto:mike@haven2.com] Sent: 04 February 2014 02:56 To: Council Subject: Re: [council] About Designing a 21st Century ICANN hi Klaus, i too have been pushing a notion that we need to broaden the base of participation. for those of you who’ve already seen this picture, my apologies. but this is something i really want to work on, so i’m constantly banging the drum. the picture has now evolved into blog post form and i’ll paste the whole shebang in here. i think that this is mostly human work — not tech-tools work. the problem that you bring in is the one of scale — how to reach all those people, organizations, businesses, leaders across the whole world. i don’t know the answer to that one. here’s the post. mikey http://www.haven2.com/index.php/archives/icann-participants ICANN participants I do these scratch-pad posts for really narrow audiences, the rest of you will find them a bit bewildering. Sorry about that. This one is aimed at the GNSO Council, as we ponder the question "how do we increase the pool of PDP working-group volunteers?" Broadening the bottom of the bottom-up process is a critical need at ICANN right now. But at least in the part of ICANN where I live (GNSO policy-making working groups) the conversations that take place are very nuanced and do require a good deal of background and experience before a person is going to be an effective contributor to the conversation. So I think that we/ICANN need to develop a clearer understanding of the many different roles that people play as they progress toward becoming an effective participant in the process. And then put the resources and process in place to encourage them along the way. This is my current picture... <http://www.haven2.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Slide1.jpg> Slide1 Roles Here's a starter-kit list of roles that people play. I'm putting them in pairs because nobody can do this by themselves -- we all need the help of others as we progress. I've also built a little drawing which puts these in a never ending circle because we're always turning back into newcomers as we explore another facet of the organization. I decided to beat the term "translation" to death in these descriptions. I think ICANN needs to "translate" what it does for a wide range of audiences to make it easier for them to participate. Newcomer <-> Recruiter A newcomer is likely to be just as bewildered by that experience as most of the rest of us have been. They need a "recruiter" greet them, welcome them into the flow, translate what's going on into terms they can understand, find out what their interests and goals are and get them introduced to a few "guides" who can take them to the next step. Explorer <-> Guide As the newcomer finds their place, they will want to explore information and conversations that are relevant to their interests and they need a "guide" to call on to translate their questions into pointers toward information or people that they're trying to find. Student <-> Teacher As the person progresses they need a positive, low-risk way to learn the skills and knowledge they need in order to be able to contribute. And, like any student, they need a teacher or two. I've always thought that we are missing a huge opportunity in the GNSO Constituencies by not consciously using the process of preparing public comments as a place for less experienced members to develop their policy-making skills in a more intimate, less risky environment than a full-blown working-group. I'd love to see newer members of Constituencies consciously brought into progressively richer roles in the teams that write public comments for Constituencies. Researcher <-> Expert Another person who needs a very specific kind of partner is a person who comes to ICANN to research -- either to find an answer to a policy-related question, find the best way to handle a problem or complaint that they have with a provider, or to discover whether there is data within the ICANN community that can help with formal academic research. Again, here is a person with fairly clear questions who needs help sifting and sorting through all the information that's available here -- another form of translation, this time provided by a librarian or an "expert" in my taxonomy. This person may not want to build new skills, they're just here for answers. But filling that "expert" role could be a great opportunity for somebody who's already here. Teammate <-> Coach A person who is experiencing a policy-making drafting-team (e.g. within a constituency) or working group for the first few times has a lot of things to learn, and many of those things aren't obvious right at the start. And this person may not feel comfortable asking questions of the whole group for a wide variety of reasons. They would benefit from a "coach" -- a person who makes it clear that they are available to answer *any* question, no matter how small. This person is translating a sometimes-mysterious team process for a teammate who is learning the ropes. Leader <-> Mentor As our person progresses, they eventually take up a leadership role, and once again could use the help of others to navigate new duties -- yet another form of translation, this time delivered by a mentor who helps the emerging leader be effective in their chosen role. Information I also think there are all kinds of information assets that participants use and access in different ways depending on what their role is at the moment. Another kind of translation! :-) <http://www.haven2.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif> Here's another starter-kit list: * Organizational structures * Documents * Transcripts * Email archives * Models * Processes * Tools and techniques * Outreach materials I think there's a gigantic opportunity to make this "career progression" and "information discovery" easier and more available to people wanting to participate at the bottom of the bottom-up process. I'm not sure that there's much need for new technology to do all this -- my thoughts run more toward setting goals, rewarding people who help, etc. But a dab of cool tech here and there might help... On Feb 3, 2014, at 3:12 PM, Klaus Stoll <kdrstoll@gmail.com> wrote: Dear Friends Greetings. I have now read the report twice and I think this report merits an extended reply by the GNSO. I will refrain from derisory comments about the report as far as a I can, only one, the first page looks like IG buzzword bingo on steroids and like steroids it replaces substance with short term illusions! A good example is the first buzzword "crowdsource". Crowdsource is a good thing, but as it is used in the report it is just a distraction the real problem. The problem of IG in general and of ICANN in particular is not a lack of participation, it is not even a question of language and acronyms. The uncomfortable fact remains true that Cyberspace today resembles a country where 1% of the population governs 99% of the population and 98% of these don’t even know that the 1% exist! This represents a real legitimacy problem for all current IG processes. Crowd sourcing is only real and legitimate if it is based on knowledge that is available to everybody in appropriate forms. Everybody needs to be able to be in the crowd and not just a self-elected elite. “The report says: (page4), “For an institution to merit the peoples trust, it first has to trust its people”. The people we are talking about here is the global Internet user community, all of them. Trust can only come when all the people know their rights and responsibilities. In the case of IG the responsibility to inform all is not simply discharged by awareness campaigns and nice pictures, but by demonstrating the relevance of IG to every level of its user community. People engage with things only if they are relevant to them, awareness is a result of relevance, empowerment and trust are the result of trusting the internet users in understanding the true significance and deep relevance of IG in all our lives. (Mikey, here is I think also part of the answer to your question regarding getting people involved into the Wgs, its not the language, its not the time, its that we have to find a way to make the WG topics relevant to a large number of people. This will not happen if we wait that people come to us, we need to get out to them). IG institutions can only be legitimate and successful if they put the awareness building and empowerment at the center of their thinking and doing. All governance structures for Cyberspace need to be user, not expert group centric. Accountability can only come from the awareness of all what IG is accountable for. Transparency in contracts and processes only makes sense when all understand what the contracts are about. Innovation has to come from informed participation based on relevance not engineered organizational processes. I am surprised by the liberal recommendation by the report of on-line tools that are only available to an elite and not the average online user in a developing country. Like the whole report, these recommendations reflect a first world centered view on IG and technology. Are other councilors also disturbed by the liberal use in the report of the “ICANN should...” phrase followed even sometimes by a time line and the clear indication that the expectation is on speedy implementation without much discussion and control? Maybe the authors of the report should be the first who take their own recommendations serious:”In the future, we need to eschew the kind of self-serious pomposity that gets in the way of change and embrace humility and fallibility as touchstones to progress”. Wise words, well spoken, unfortunately completely ignored in the very same report. Happy to work with fellow councilors on a more detailed reply. Yours Klaus On 2/3/2014 7:24 PM, Jonathan Robinson wrote: Thanks All, Personally, I can see no reason to use such words. That symbolic detail aside, this does throw up some critical points about how we engage with this work. I have a call planned this week to talk one-to-one with Beth Novek in order to give some feedback. I’ll obviously take into account any input from the Council. In addition, the Council needs to think about any other feedback, responses or engagement with the work of this panel. Jonathan From: Gabriela Szlak [mailto:gabrielaszlak@gmail.com] Sent: 03 February 2014 17:46 To: Maria Farrell Cc: John Berard; Jonathan Robinson; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] About Designing a 21st Century ICANN ... And bear in mind that the purpose - in their own words is- : · Proposing new models for broad, inclusive engagement, consensus-based policymaking and institutional structures to support such enhanced functions; and · Designing processes, tools and platforms that enable a global ICANN community to engage in these new forms of participatory decision-making Google translator cannot even translate those two words... it feels really strange to talk about global engagement and participatory processes only in English and in a an English that it seems also complex for english speakers to get... G. Gabriela Szlak Skype: gabrielaszlak Twitter: @GabiSzlak La información contenida en este e-mail es confidencial. The information in this e-mail is confidential. 2014-02-03 Maria Farrell <maria.farrell@gmail.com>: Goodness, I also nearly snorted my coffee but held it down long enough to look up 'scylla' and 'charybdis'. I was chagrinned to learn these new (to me) words were first used in the ICANN context by the beloved Norwegian Harald Alvestrand back in 2002, a few reform movements back. Who knew? "The current ICANN has attempted to chart a course between the scylla of doing nothing and the charybdis of doing everything;" http://www.alvestrand.no/icann/icann_reform.html On 3 February 2014 17:23, <john@crediblecontext.com> wrote: Jonathan, My coffee came through my nose this morning when I read the blueprint from the multistakeholder strategy panel. But, while language like this: "engaging people in meaningful and productive conversations about how to redesign the way ICANN runs itself is difficult because the conversation gets caught, on the one hand, between the scylla of broad generalities and geopolitics without regard to the specifics of ICANN’s day-to-day work, and the charybdis of mind-numbing technical detail on the other" is a bit overblown, it also works as mis-direction. There is no argument but that generalities, geopolitics and technical detail are a part of ICANN's life, but I would argue with "broad" and "mind-numbing." That kind of language tips the player's hand. Further, by pegging effectiveness to the use of expert networks and linking legitimacy to crowdsourcing at each stage of decision making may only hint at the future shape of ICANN but it is clear in its view that the current version is no longer appetizing. I will likely think hard about that as I pack for the trip to Singapore. Cheers, Berard --------- Original Message --------- Subject: [council] FW: Stage 2 Begins: Designing a 21st Century ICANN From: "Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson@afilias.info> Date: 2/3/14 1:12 am To: council@gnso.icann.org Stage 2 Begins: Designing a 21st Century ICANN From: The ICANN Strategy Panel on Multistakeholder Innovation & The GovLab [mailto:icannmsipanel@thegovlab.org] Sent: 31 January 2014 19:01 To: jrobinson@afilias.info Subject: Stage 2 Begins: Designing a 21st Century ICANN <https://gallery.mailchimp.com/1a990feb5c/images/logo_icann_ideascale_3_.png

Hello! By engaging the stakeholders of the Internet (this really includes everyone!), the ICANN Strategy Panel on Multistakeholder Innovation ( <http://openinggovernment.us6.list-manage.com/track/click?u=1a990feb5c&id=9e 2fe95b04&e=32eced4cfd> the MSI Panel) and The Governance Lab @ NYU ( <http://openinggovernment.us6.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=1a990feb5c&id=d 1a6e896d6&e=32eced4cfd> The GovLab) are working to develop a set of concrete proposals for designing the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) – the public interest organization responsible for coordinating the Internet’s Domain Name System (DNS) – for the 21st Century. We’re writing to request your participation in this important initiative and to help us spread the word! Today launches Stage 2 – Proposal Development – of our online engagement effort aimed at getting your input into the Panel’s work in order to bring our ideas for evolving ICANN from principle to practice. The Panel has been specifically charged by ICANN’s President and CEO with: · Proposing new models for international engagement, consensus-driven policymaking and institutional structures to support such enhanced functions; and · Designing processes, tools and platforms that enable the global ICANN community to engage in these new forms of participatory decision-making. To answer this charter, we launched a three-stage brainstorm initiative on November 19, 2013. We started with Stage 1: Idea Generation. The Panel and GovLab launched an <http://openinggovernment.us6.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=1a990feb5c&id=4 9575264ee&e=32eced4cfd> engagement platform asking the global public to share their ideas for what techniques, strategies, tools and platforms ICANN could look to and learn from to help transform itself into an effective, legitimate and evolving 21st century global organization. We now want to take these ideas closer to implementation during Stage 2. To do so, we’ve shared the <http://openinggovernment.us6.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=1a990feb5c&id=b 31cd77527&e=32eced4cfd> draft proposal blueprint on the GovLab Blog organizing all of our ideas into 16 concrete proposals for ICANN, which we are opening up to you for discussion. We want your feedback, input, comments, questions, and suggestions on what we’ve collected. We’ve also published our first set of proposals, which include recommendations for ICANN to: * <http://openinggovernment.us6.list-manage.com/track/click?u=1a990feb5c&id=c8 d26b0537&e=32eced4cfd> Leverage expert networking; * <http://openinggovernment.us6.list-manage.com/track/click?u=1a990feb5c&id=78 cb16e898&e=32eced4cfd> Use crowdsourcing during all phases of decisionmaking; and * <http://openinggovernment.us6.list-manage.com/track/click?u=1a990feb5c&id=75 796fa362&e=32eced4cfd> Crowdsource oversight and develop standards to measure success. Feel free to provide feedback or reactions using comments or the line-by-line annotation tools enabled on the blog. You can also see all of these materials aggregated on the GovLab's ICANN project page, online <http://openinggovernment.us6.list-manage.com/track/click?u=1a990feb5c&id=e6 06d3f2d6&e=32eced4cfd> HERE. Help us spread the word! Do you know any people or organizations who would be interested in these proposal topics? We’d love to get their feedback, too. Consider doing any of the following: · Forward this “Call To Action” to colleagues and organizations you know working in these areas who may have ideas or feedback to share on the blog. · Share our proposal draft links (all accessible <http://openinggovernment.us6.list-manage.com/track/click?u=1a990feb5c&id=16 6e90c780&e=32eced4cfd> here), as widely as possible within your networks (e.g., via mailing lists and listservs). Feel free to link to these posts or repost on your website edited to fit your needs! · Use social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter or Google+ to spread the word about this initiative (use the #WeCANN hashtag!). · To inspire participation and learn how to contribute, watch and share a <http://openinggovernment.us6.list-manage.com/track/click?u=1a990feb5c&id=ad b2ce10df&e=32eced4cfd> video The GovLab made when we launched this brainstorm. · Discuss the MSI Panel’s work and proposals in your own communities and share your comments and feedback with the us in the blog comments or at <http://openinggovernment.us6.list-manage.com/track/click?u=1a990feb5c&id=c7 8e16b652&e=32eced4cfd> icannmsipanel@thegovlab.org. Toward the end of February – we will move into the last stage of this brainstorm – Stage 3: Collaborative Drafting. Using a <http://openinggovernment.us6.list-manage.com/track/click?u=1a990feb5c&id=e8 9c0b7d3f&e=32eced4cfd> wiki, we will invite collaborative drafting on a first full draft of all proposals that the Panel will then submit to the ICANN CEO, Board and community. So stay tuned! For more information, visit The GovLab at <http://openinggovernment.us6.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=1a990feb5c&id=6 c7b575816&e=32eced4cfd> www.thegovlab.org. Thanks and best, The MSI Panel & The GovLab <http://openinggovernment.us6.list-manage.com/unsubscribe?u=1a990feb5c&id=a8 62b42724&e=32eced4cfd&c=15654e31a5> unsubscribe from this list <http://openinggovernment.us6.list-manage.com/profile?u=1a990feb5c&id=a862b4 2724&e=32eced4cfd> update subscription preferences <http://openinggovernment.us6.list-manage.com/track/open.php?u=1a990feb5c&id =15654e31a5&e=32eced4cfd> PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)

Hi On 04-Feb-14 10:02, Mike O'Connor wrote:

which brings me to the last idea for this post. i wonder whether we need *two* GNSO Councils — a Policy Council (us) and a Leadership Council comprised of the heads of the SGs and constituencies who elect their own leader to coordinate and drive the work of those functional bodies.

While this is the sort of thing that the review of the GNSO can come up with, I personally think it is a really bad idea that will confuse things even further. I think that the GNSO has one leadership council, the GNSO Council, not a GNSO Policy Council but a GNSO Council. And while there are those who have had a long standing campaign to denature the GNSO Council to make it less then it is supposed to be, the only real effect of splitting the leadership into two councils would be to weaken the GNSO and promote inter-council conflict on whose responsibility something was. Finger pointing would be the order of the day. Definitely something I will argue against on every opportunity. avri

Hi, (I changed the topic yet again) I do not believe I have the ability to educate you on this, nor would I presume to do so. What I can do is present arguments in support of my position. I think the problem is in the framing of the discussion. We are not oversight of the whole GNSO. I did not know you were suggesting oversight for the GNSO. I tend to think of each of the SGs self-organizing in terms of their internal issues, with the Board's by-your-leave - of course. I do not believe further oversight of SGs is needed beyond what the SIC already does. What is sometimes needed is coordination, an aggregation point where the various SGs can come together and work on common goals - if and when they wish. The council can be useful in such facilitation. SGs can also put together other constructions, such as the current 'for counting purposes only' Houses*. They are useful to the degree that the components, the SGs, decide to use them. Not in an authoritative manner, but as a organizational focusing point. Perhaps there are things that the Houses wish to make common cause on and they are free to self-organize any sort of coordination function they wish to organize. Likewise other cooperative projects between Houses or between constituencies can form and reform based on the patterns of cooperation and be issue based. So I see the council as oversight of the policy process, not the SGs. I also see as the place where the SG can naturally come together enabling us as council members to also be useful in encouraging our separate SGs to work together as a way of achieving various goals. I also see the council as a service organization that can be used by the SGs when they have a common cause, aka GNSO consensus, to effect changes beyond GNSO policy. avri * (Have we actually managed to make Houses useful for anything other than counting votes yet?) On 04-Feb-14 15:26, Mike O'Connor wrote:

hi Avri.

i love it when i blunder into something like this. interesting! so i hijacked the thread over to it’s own new one so we don’t unduly tangle up the MSI discussion.

i don’t hold this as an absolute do or die issue — but if the Council has authority and responsibility for the *whole* GNSO, i think we’ve got some figuring-things-out to do. i’ve been laboring under the notion that the heads of the SGs and constituencies had responsibility and authority over their respective organizations and that the Council truly is a policy council.

can you point me at the right places to go learn more about this topic? i’m in that “oops, i’d better go educate myself” mode at the moment.

thanks for the heads up,

mikey

On Feb 4, 2014, at 9:46 AM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:

...

Hi

On 04-Feb-14 10:02, Mike O'Connor wrote:

...

which brings me to the last idea for this post. i wonder whether we need *two* GNSO Councils — a Policy Council (us) and a Leadership Council comprised of the heads of the SGs and constituencies who elect their own leader to coordinate and drive the work of those functional bodies.

While this is the sort of thing that the review of the GNSO can come up with, I personally think it is a really bad idea that will confuse things even further.

I think that the GNSO has one leadership council, the GNSO Council, not a GNSO Policy Council but a GNSO Council. And while there are those who have had a long standing campaign to denature the GNSO Council to make it less then it is supposed to be, the only real effect of splitting the leadership into two councils would be to weaken the GNSO and promote inter-council conflict on whose responsibility something was. Finger pointing would be the order of the day.

Definitely something I will argue against on every opportunity.

avri

PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)

egad. sorry Jonathan, i didn’t mean to cut you out of the conversation — i’m still struggling to get through email and didn’t see your reply. i agree, this is a conversation that can easily wait for a while. mikey On Feb 5, 2014, at 11:46 AM, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info> wrote:

I am sure there are all sorts of nuances that we could tease out here.

However, I think I am pretty well aligned with Avri's view outlined below.

The Council's primary role is management and co-ordination of policy work in the GNSO. The fact that all GNSO groups come together in or around the work of the Council is challenging and often requires voting. But, it also puts us in a privileged position to assist with broader GNSO co-operation / coordination.

We shouldn't drop the MSI discussion. It may well be that it becomes appropriate for the Council to formally respond / provide input to the MSI Panel or to the CEO regarding the work of the panel and how it links with that of the Council and the GNSO.

Jonathan

-----Original Message----- From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@acm.org] Sent: 04 February 2014 21:30 To: Council Subject: Re: [council] framing the discussion on SGs and role of the Council

Hi,

(I changed the topic yet again)

I do not believe I have the ability to educate you on this, nor would I presume to do so. What I can do is present arguments in support of my position.

I think the problem is in the framing of the discussion. We are not oversight of the whole GNSO. I did not know you were suggesting oversight for the GNSO. I tend to think of each of the SGs self-organizing in terms of their internal issues, with the Board's by-your-leave - of course. I do not believe further oversight of SGs is needed beyond what the SIC already does.

What is sometimes needed is coordination, an aggregation point where the various SGs can come together and work on common goals - if and when they wish. The council can be useful in such facilitation. SGs can also put together other constructions, such as the current 'for counting purposes only' Houses*. They are useful to the degree that the components, the SGs, decide to use them. Not in an authoritative manner, but as a organizational focusing point. Perhaps there are things that the Houses wish to make common cause on and they are free to self-organize any sort of coordination function they wish to organize. Likewise other cooperative projects between Houses or between constituencies can form and reform based on the patterns of cooperation and be issue based.

So I see the council as oversight of the policy process, not the SGs. I also see as the place where the SG can naturally come together enabling us as council members to also be useful in encouraging our separate SGs to work together as a way of achieving various goals. I also see the council as a service organization that can be used by the SGs when they have a common cause, aka GNSO consensus, to effect changes beyond GNSO policy.

avri

* (Have we actually managed to make Houses useful for anything other than counting votes yet?)

On 04-Feb-14 15:26, Mike O'Connor wrote:

...

hi Avri.

i love it when i blunder into something like this. interesting! so i

hijacked the thread over to it's own new one so we don't unduly tangle up the MSI discussion.

...

i don't hold this as an absolute do or die issue - but if the Council has

authority and responsibility for the *whole* GNSO, i think we've got some figuring-things-out to do. i've been laboring under the notion that the heads of the SGs and constituencies had responsibility and authority over their respective organizations and that the Council truly is a policy council.

...

can you point me at the right places to go learn more about this topic?

i'm in that "oops, i'd better go educate myself" mode at the moment.

...

thanks for the heads up,

mikey

On Feb 4, 2014, at 9:46 AM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:

...

Hi

On 04-Feb-14 10:02, Mike O'Connor wrote:

...

which brings me to the last idea for this post. i wonder whether we need *two* GNSO Councils - a Policy Council (us) and a Leadership Council comprised of the heads of the SGs and constituencies who elect their own leader to coordinate and drive the work of those functional bodies.

While this is the sort of thing that the review of the GNSO can come up

with, I personally think it is a really bad idea that will confuse things even further.

...

...

I think that the GNSO has one leadership council, the GNSO Council, not a

GNSO Policy Council but a GNSO Council. And while there are those who have had a long standing campaign to denature the GNSO Council to make it less then it is supposed to be, the only real effect of splitting the leadership into two councils would be to weaken the GNSO and promote inter-council conflict on whose responsibility something was. Finger pointing would be the order of the day.

...

Definitely something I will argue against on every opportunity.

avri

PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)

PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)

You weren't. Not by me at least! I only intended to ensure that we didn't drop the original topic relating to the work of the MSI panel and our interaction / engagement with that. Jonathan -----Original Message----- From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@acm.org] Sent: 06 February 2014 13:54 To: Council Subject: Re: [council] framing the discussion on SGs and role of the Council Hi, On 06-Feb-14 08:37, Mike O'Connor wrote:

egad. sorry Jonathan, i didn't mean to cut you out of the conversation - i'm still struggling to get through email and didn't see your reply.

i agree, this is a conversation that can easily wait for a while.

mikey

I did not realize we were asked to stop. Apologies. avri

<grin> i yield on the subject-line — looks good to me. sorry this reply took so long, email got thrown overboard to cope with complications on other fronts OK - points of agreement (i’m really glad we agree on these two fundamental points) — we are not overseer of the whole GNSO — the Council is overseer of the policy process points of discussion — SGs are self-organizing, organized with a by-your-leave from the Board, without need of further oversight. i need convincing on that last bit - there’s the possibility of trouble when there are functional organizations that report to nobody, not even a coordinating body. btw, none of these are do-or-die issues for me, i put them more in the “opportunities lost” column. — Council as service organization to SGs when they have common cause to effect change beyond GNSO policy. i also need convincing on this one - can you point me at documentation that supports this role? it seems quite different than my understanding of what we’re supposed to do. thanks! again, sorry about the sluggish reply. mikey On Feb 4, 2014, at 3:29 PM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:

Hi,

(I changed the topic yet again)

I do not believe I have the ability to educate you on this, nor would I presume to do so. What I can do is present arguments in support of my position.

I think the problem is in the framing of the discussion. We are not oversight of the whole GNSO. I did not know you were suggesting oversight for the GNSO. I tend to think of each of the SGs self-organizing in terms of their internal issues, with the Board's by-your-leave - of course. I do not believe further oversight of SGs is needed beyond what the SIC already does.

What is sometimes needed is coordination, an aggregation point where the various SGs can come together and work on common goals - if and when they wish. The council can be useful in such facilitation. SGs can also put together other constructions, such as the current 'for counting purposes only' Houses*. They are useful to the degree that the components, the SGs, decide to use them. Not in an authoritative manner, but as a organizational focusing point. Perhaps there are things that the Houses wish to make common cause on and they are free to self-organize any sort of coordination function they wish to organize. Likewise other cooperative projects between Houses or between constituencies can form and reform based on the patterns of cooperation and be issue based.

So I see the council as oversight of the policy process, not the SGs. I also see as the place where the SG can naturally come together enabling us as council members to also be useful in encouraging our separate SGs to work together as a way of achieving various goals. I also see the council as a service organization that can be used by the SGs when they have a common cause, aka GNSO consensus, to effect changes beyond GNSO policy.

avri

* (Have we actually managed to make Houses useful for anything other than counting votes yet?)

On 04-Feb-14 15:26, Mike O'Connor wrote:

...

hi Avri.

i love it when i blunder into something like this. interesting! so i hijacked the thread over to it’s own new one so we don’t unduly tangle up the MSI discussion.

i don’t hold this as an absolute do or die issue — but if the Council has authority and responsibility for the *whole* GNSO, i think we’ve got some figuring-things-out to do. i’ve been laboring under the notion that the heads of the SGs and constituencies had responsibility and authority over their respective organizations and that the Council truly is a policy council.

can you point me at the right places to go learn more about this topic? i’m in that “oops, i’d better go educate myself” mode at the moment.

thanks for the heads up,

mikey

On Feb 4, 2014, at 9:46 AM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:

...

Hi

On 04-Feb-14 10:02, Mike O'Connor wrote:

...

which brings me to the last idea for this post. i wonder whether we need *two* GNSO Councils — a Policy Council (us) and a Leadership Council comprised of the heads of the SGs and constituencies who elect their own leader to coordinate and drive the work of those functional bodies.

While this is the sort of thing that the review of the GNSO can come up with, I personally think it is a really bad idea that will confuse things even further.

I think that the GNSO has one leadership council, the GNSO Council, not a GNSO Policy Council but a GNSO Council. And while there are those who have had a long standing campaign to denature the GNSO Council to make it less then it is supposed to be, the only real effect of splitting the leadership into two councils would be to weaken the GNSO and promote inter-council conflict on whose responsibility something was. Finger pointing would be the order of the day.

Definitely something I will argue against on every opportunity.

avri

PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)

PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)

[ warning - long densely argued post follows ] Hi Avri, conversation is inline, but just a quick note of thanks at the top to express my appreciation for the care you took in writing this reply. On Feb 6, 2014, at 1:06 AM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:

On 05-Feb-14 18:43, Mike O'Connor wrote:

...

[snip]

OK - points of agreement (i’m really glad we agree on these two fundamental points)

— we are not overseer of the whole GNSO

— the Council is overseer of the policy process

points of discussion

...

— SGs are self-organizing, organized with a by-your-leave from the Board, without need of further oversight.

...

i need convincing on that last bit -

Well, I can try to give my reasons for this belief. As for convincing you, my experience tells me most people convince themselves if they are going to be convinced. But maybe my arguments will be useful in your deliberations.

...

there’s the possibility of trouble when there are functional organizations that report to nobody, not even a coordinating body.

Basic for me in the definition of a bottom-up organization: the oversight of a group is by the group, as that is who they are accountable to. Now by the group I don't necessarily mean the self selected folks who work in the SG or are (s)elected for roles, but rather the larger set of members (in the case of a GNSO SG or C, the appropriate population varies by group)

another point of agreement - options for group oversight can include “by the group itself.” i think that if the SG&Cs decide that they want more group oversight/coordination that their leaders are the people to make that request, not the Council. my main interest is the absence of coordination/supervision altogether. i think there may be a bit of a vacuum in that area right now. i’m very open to options as to how that vacuum might get filled, what that group looks like, how it’s formed, etc.

In ICANN we have an additional top-down wild card - the Board is oversight for everything except maybe the Ombudsman and AOC Review teams (a bottom-up oversight mechanism in itself)

From Bylaws X.2

...

"Except as otherwise defined in these Bylaws, the four Stakeholder Groups and the Constituencies will be responsible for defining their own charters with the approval of their members and of the ICANN Board of Directors."

So that is 4 points of oversight:

Hard oversight - their word is law

- the group itself through means defined in its charter - the Structural Improvement Committee of the Board (SIC) that pretty much does what it feels needs to be done with the approval of the entire Board.

Soft oversight

- the Ombudsman - in the case of a complaint of unfairness - the ATRT - if SG/C issues or accountability and transparency were the topic selected by the ATRT based on the community's advice, as necessary to review in a particular cycle.

I find it hard to think of them as reporting to nobody.

that section is really helpful. it’s causing me to shade my language a bit. point of agreement — there are already several well-established mechanisms to provide oversight in the “review and correct past actions” or “regulatory supervision" sense of the word.

...

btw, none of these are do-or-die issues for me, i put them more in the “opportunities lost” column.

Now, I believe in regulatory structures as much as the next person, but I do not see a need for yet further oversight.

agreed.

Where I do see a need is for the organization of cooperation.

also emphatically agreed and a much better set of words to describe the vacuum i’m interested in. to stretch the envelope, i would add the word “supervision” to the mix. not in the “backward-looking regulatory oversight” sense, but in the “forward-looking leadership and accountability” sense. what appeals to me about both “organizing of cooperation” and “supervision” is that it provides a focal point for conversation and future action. here are a few examples of topics i would love to have ongoing planning and delivery of: - broadening/deepening the pool of participants in PDP process - in an orderly and predictable way, provide assistance to participants as they seek to become more effective those topics dovetail nicely with some examples you pull in near the bottom of this post. they are also examples of activities that exist forever (we PDP people are “customers" of those activities btw). it’s generally thought that the best way to provide ongoing functions is through some kind of “unit” of organization that provides ongoing coordination and leadership. we the Council are a great example of such an ongoing function — my understanding of our focus is to provide ongoing coordination and leadership of the policy development process.

Cooperation can happen in many ways including by not limited to:

- ad hoc - e.g. cooperation among SG reps to achieve a policy goal in the council

- self-organization - something like the ccWG Ig, assuming it ever becomes real, where there was a decision on the part of some to attract the rest of the community to work on a particular issue and there are organizational aspirations.

- top-down suggested/enforced - e.g. the GNSO that was told by the Board to figure out a solution to reorganizing the GNSO structure a few years back that resulted in a set of SIC requirements for Constituencies and Stakeholder Groups.

let me take your ideas through my distinction between “projects” (beginning, middle, end, celebration) and “functions” (ongoing things that have customers and/or clients). i’d say that your first one would fall in the “project” category — they organize, the achieve their goal, they disband and head off to the next adventure. the second one is also a project, but the *deliverable* of that project could be either a project (a CCWG) or a function (if the activity is something that will be ongoing). the third one has several things going on at once. there’s an ongoing function (the Board) giving direction to a body under its supervision. there’s a project (a team) that’s formed by a subsidiary function (the Council) to figure out the best way to implement the request. the upshot may be a project (if it’s a one-time thing) or a revision to a function (if the change is supposed to last for a long time). so here’s a different framing of your “cooperation can happen in many ways” point dimensions: - formal vs informal — many times the ad hoc stuff may start out informal. at some point along the line the group may decide that they need to formalize either into a team (project) or a function (unit) - project vs function — see above and throughout

...

— Council as service organization to SGs when they have common cause to effect change beyond GNSO policy. i also need convincing on this one - can you point me at documentation that supports this role?

A thought or two occur to me on this.

I tend to think that a group that can help coordinate the efforts of the willing is of course always authorized to help the willing cooperate.

this may be one that we need to work on some more. the project-manager in me starts ringing “scope creep” alarm bells with this. which in turn leads *me* to have a few more thoughts… the charter of the Council isn’t nearly as detailed as the rigor we now demand for working groups. that, i think, may be something we should fix. we have really good documentation of the PDP, thanks in large part to you. we have much better charters for working groups than we used to. we also have much better charters for the SG/constituency functions. but basically all we have as a charter for the Council are those few sentences in the Bylaws and, as we’ll see a little further on, i think there’s some imprecision in that language.

To say that we need a document to tell us we may coordinate the goals of our SG and Cs when they consent, is difficult for me to understand. I don't really understand needing to be convinced that helping people cooperate needs permission from some authority.

i think there are some situations where permission is less needed than others. and it mostly has to do with resources and authority. informal, short-term assistance - no problem, that should be willingly given if requested. formal, long-term assistance i think needs a bit more consideration and support by the organizations from which we draw our authority (in addition to the consent by the SG&C’s). my concern would be that we fill a vacuum that we shouldn’t, or don’t take sufficient time to think through the best way to fill a vacuum. why the word “shouldn’t”? because we the Council may not have the resources, bandwidth, skills, representation, or role that’s appropriate for the situation. you and i share a certain crankiness when we conclude that the Board or the administration oversteps its authority — i’m just looking in the other direction.

That is indeed another feature of a bottom-up organization - you are as organized as you decide to be (again with the caveat that having an authoritative Board does add a touch of the top down to make any analysis a bit more complex).

yep. and here’s another complexity to ponder. i’ve always made the distinction between the PDP (bottom up by design and desire) versus SG&C’s, AC/SO’s, the Board and the administration (which are not necessarily bottom up by design *or* desire). all those other organizations are functional and they generally operate by more traditional hierarchy rather than the formal consensus process of the WGs. i’m actually growing quite comfortable thinking about ICANN as a bottom up *policy* process that’s supported by a more traditionally organized set of volunteer and staff functions. room for lots of debate here, clearly.

Note I do not argue that the SGs could not come together and create an organizational framework - I would still argue against it for various reasons, but that would at least be a bottom-up process of self-aggregation and self-imposition of further oversight. But, the fact that this could happen does not mean that the action of the council in regard to organizing cooperation are in any way limited by the by-laws now.

i have two quibbles with that last sentence. a) i’m not sure that absence of limitation in the Bylaws is the same as encouragement or permission to do something and b) i don’t think we’re necessarily ready or able to organize that cooperation. we could certainly become prepared to do that, but i don’t see a strong mandate for us in this area.

...

it seems quite different than my understanding of what we’re supposed to do.

We have some designated activities:

- managing policy process - electing seats 13 and 14 of the Board

yep

But the By-Laws X.9 do no limit the GNSO to those actions:

...

9. Except as otherwise specified in these Bylaws, Annex A hereto, or the GNSO Operating Procedures, the default threshold to pass a GNSO Council motion or other voting action requires a simple majority vote of each House. The voting thresholds described below shall apply to the following GNSO actions:

This is then followed by the complexity of PDP voting. This indicates that the council is not barred from other activities. They just haven't been specifically assigned.

If electing and policy management were the only activities the GNSO Council were permitted, then there would have been no need for this clause. The fact that it exists indicates that the representatives of the SG and the community (i.e. the NCAs) may do things other than those that have specific voting threshholds.

While these activities are limited to the GNSO and gTLDs by the nature of ICANN organizational Architecture, there are no limitations put on the actions of the GNSO Council within these boundaries.

So, while I do not have evidence of a specific clause that the GNSO Council can help organize other activities according to the simple majority vote of the council, I believe I have shown evidence that the council MAY do more than just manage policy if the GNSO SGs, by a majority, decide to do so. The only things we MUST do are Manage Policy and Elect Board members and a GNSO.

Also I would note that:

By-Laws x.3.4

...

4. The GNSO Council is responsible for managing the policy development process of the GNSO.

Does not say:

4. The GNSO Council is ONLY responsible for managing the policy development process of the GNSO and nothing more.

this gets me back to the need for clarifying the charter of the GNSO Council, and is the reason that i generally stick in a “Scope” section which includes both things that are "in scope" and things that are "out of scope." the problem i run into with your interpretation is that gives the Council the authority to undertake pretty much anything it wants to as long as the activity is within the boundaries of the GNSO. as i am generally quite cautious in my interpretation of scope statements, your view represents a big change to my understanding of our scope/authority. i’m not necessarily violently opposed to your idea, i just don’t feel comfortable that the Council actually has that mandate or the capability to carry it out effectively. room for lots of discussion here.

Further By-Laws X.5.5 says:

...

Whenever the Board posts a petition or recommendation for a new Constituency for public comment, the Board shall notify the GNSO Council and the appropriate Stakeholder Group affected and shall consider any response to that notification prior to taking action.

Why would the Board notify the Council of the creation of new Constituencies if it was not the case thatt the council of the GNSO, had a say in the GNSO as an organization.

this argument i think we need to slice really fine. i can see how the framers of that sentence might have been thinking that the Council, as the manager of the policy-making process, would have valuable (policy-process-management) input on the impact of a new Constituency on that policy making process and a perspective that is quite different from the views of the existing constituencies (which are ongoing, functional and address other aspects of the GNSO). it would be helpful if the people who’d written than sentence had been a little clearer on why they included the Council in that clause, but there’s my guess.

Additionally By-Laws X.3.7 says:

...

7. The GNSO Council shall select the GNSO Chair for a term the GNSO Council specifies, but not longer than one year.

Note, it says "the GNSO chair," not the "GNSO Council chair." The vice-chairs on the other hand are specifically referred to as "Vice-Chair of the whole of the GNSO Council”.

this is another finely-sliced argument. i don’t want to put words in Jonathan’s mouth, but if i were in his shoes i would be reluctant to call myself the Chair of the GNSO and i would also be reluctant to take on that unified job without some really clear delegation of that authority from the SG&C leaders. so i put that down to sloppy drafting, and a slender reed on which to build a case.

So, why do I think the Council as a service group that should serve the GNSO in any way it needs? Because I guess I believe all those elected as volunteer leaders are volunteers in service. So, to my mind, if the representatives of the SGs in the council decide, as determined by the by-laws, that they need for us to take on a task, I see support in the by-laws for us doing so.

i entirely agree with you that we are volunteers in service and i too am happy to help. but i would like the SG&C leaders make that request of us. i think we Councilors are elected to represent the SG&Cs in managing the policy making process. but we are not the leaders of the SG&Cs and all of the things in the GNSO that fall outside of the orderly flow and execution of the PDP. i just took a look at the NCSG leadership page because i wanted to put your Chair’s name in here as an example. the NCSG organization is a little hard for me to figure out — is Rafik the Chair? anyway, Michele Neylon is the chair of the registrars, Keith Drazek is the chair of the registries, my chair is Tony Holmes, etc. that is the group that i would like to see that request come from. [snip - closings and stuff]

Ps. while looking a various bits of history, I ran into the following

http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/inactive/2012/improvements/restruc... http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/inactive/2012/improvements/restruc...

Representation

...

a. All four stakeholder groups must strive to fulfill pre-established objective criteria regarding broadening outreach and deepening participation from a diverse range of participants.

b. All stakeholder groups must have rules and processes in place that make it possible for any and all people and organizations eligible for the stakeholder group to join, participate and be heard regardless of their policy viewpoints.

yes! one the very things that i’d like to see more juice behind — broader base. the other thing i’d like to add to their pile, now speaking as a customer not as the boss, is “better mechanisms to prepare that base to be effective participants in the PDP process, especially working groups."

This is the recommendation that resulted from Report To ICANN Board of Directors From Working Group On GNSO Council Restructuring 25 July 2008. It recommended the structure we have now to the Board, which the Board essentially accepted.

This is to some extent, an example that may go against the first principle we agreed on - that the GNSO has no oversight over the GNSO itself. In this case, the sub team of council members did indeed make recommendations with regard to the Stakeholder groups - it not only recommended a reorganization but made recommendations on details internal to those SGs.

let me reemphasize that “speaking as a customer” point i made just above — i am *entirely* comfortable with the Council turning back to the SG&Cs and saying “look, we need a broader and better-prepared pool of volunteers for the policy development process, how can we help?” that doesn’t put us in charge, it just makes us more clearly state our need. i draw a different conclusion from your example. that was a sub team of a Council that had much broader authority and responsibilities than the one we sit on. indeed, that was a Council where the councilors were both the leaders of their SG&Cs *and* carrying out the policy-Council job that we do. to me, that was a really important part of the reform — breaking those two jobs apart. so i agree that the Council of old had broader authority than we do. i’m not so sure we can just take it back without consent from the leaders of the SG&Cs. and i’m thinking that they recommended those changes of authority and responsibility really wisely — to broaden outreach. what i’m lobbying for is that the SG&Cs may want to increase coordination amongst themselves to do that.

The more I work on this topic, the more I start to believe that if there is a need for further oversight of the whole GNSO, it would not be inappropriate or outside the bounds on what has gone before, for that to become a GNSO council task. I do not think this level of oversight is currently required, but I am always willing to reconsider. I.e. I may be convincing myself that Point of Agreement 1 is based on weak arguments.

oh well. :-) back to you. mikey PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)

Also, not enough that the use of adjectives cearly underlines the agenda here, the use of this kind of high-level English is not beneficial to the aim of ICANN to reach out to the world... "Scylla" and "Charybdis"? Who uses these words? Volker Am 03.02.2014 18:23, schrieb john@crediblecontext.com:

Jonathan, My coffee came through my nose this morning when I read the blueprint from the multistakeholder strategy panel. But, while language like this: "engaging people in meaningful and productive conversations about how to redesign the way ICANN runs itself is difficult because the conversation gets caught, on the one hand, between the scylla of broad generalities and geopolitics without regard to the specifics of ICANN’s day-to-day work, and the charybdis of mind-numbing technical detail on the other" is a bit overblown, it also works as mis-direction. There is no argument but that generalities, geopolitics and technical detail are a part of ICANN's life, but I would argue with "broad" and "mind-numbing." That kind of language tips the player's hand.

Further, by pegging effectiveness to the use of expert networks and linking legitimacy to crowdsourcing at each stage of decision making may only hint at the future shape of ICANN but it is clear in its view that the current version is no longer appetizing. I will likely think hard about that as I pack for the trip to Singapore. Cheers, Berard

--------- Original Message --------- Subject: [council] FW: Stage 2 Begins: Designing a 21st Century ICANN From: "Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson@afilias.info> Date: 2/3/14 1:12 am To: council@gnso.icann.org

Stage 2 Begins: Designing a 21st Century ICANN

*From:*The ICANN Strategy Panel on Multistakeholder Innovation & The GovLab [mailto:icannmsipanel@thegovlab.org] *Sent:* 31 January 2014 19:01 *To:* jrobinson@afilias.info *Subject:* Stage 2 Begins: Designing a 21st Century ICANN

Hello!

By engaging the stakeholders of the Internet (this really includes everyone!), the ICANN Strategy Panel on Multistakeholder Innovation (the MSI Panel <http://openinggovernment.us6.list-manage.com/track/click?u=1a990feb5c&id=9e2...>) and The Governance Lab @ NYU (The GovLab <http://openinggovernment.us6.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=1a990feb5c&id=d1...>) are working to develop a set of concrete proposals for designing the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) – the public interest organization responsible for coordinating the Internet’s Domain Name System (DNS) – for the 21st Century.

We’re writing to request your participation in this important initiative and to help us spread the word!

Today launches /*Stage 2 *//–*Proposal Development *–**/of our online engagement effort aimed at getting *your*input into the Panel’s work in order to bring our ideas for evolving ICANN from principle to practice. The Panel has been specifically charged by ICANN’s President and CEO with:

·Proposing new models for international engagement, consensus-driven policymaking and institutional structures to support such enhanced functions; and

·Designing processes, tools and platforms that enable the global ICANN community to engage in these new forms of participatory decision-making.

To answer this charter, we launched a three-stage brainstorm initiative on November 19, 2013. We started with *Stage 1: Idea Generation. *The Panel and GovLab launched an *engagement platform <http://openinggovernment.us6.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=1a990feb5c&id=49575264ee&e=32eced4cfd>* asking the global public to share their ideas for what techniques, strategies, tools and platforms ICANN could look to and learn from to help transform itself into an /effective, legitimate and evolving/21st century global organization.

We now want to take these ideas closer to implementation during Stage 2. To do so, we’ve shared the *draft proposal blueprint * <http://openinggovernment.us6.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=1a990feb5c&id=b31cd77527&e=32eced4cfd>on the /GovLab Blog /organizing all of our ideas into 16 concrete proposals for ICANN, which we are *opening up to you for discussion. *We want your feedback, input, comments, questions, and suggestions on what we’ve collected. We’ve also published our first set of proposals, which include recommendations for ICANN to:

* Leverage expert networking <http://openinggovernment.us6.list-manage.com/track/click?u=1a990feb5c&id=c8d...>; * Use crowdsourcing during all phases of decisionmaking <http://openinggovernment.us6.list-manage.com/track/click?u=1a990feb5c&id=78c...>; and * Crowdsource oversight and develop standards to measure success <http://openinggovernment.us6.list-manage.com/track/click?u=1a990feb5c&id=757...>.

*Feel free to provide feedback or reactions using comments or the line-by-line annotation tools enabled on the blog.*

You can also see all of these materials aggregated on the GovLab's ICANN project page, online /*HERE*/ <http://openinggovernment.us6.list-manage.com/track/click?u=1a990feb5c&id=e606d3f2d6&e=32eced4cfd>*.*

*Help us spread the word!*

Do you know any people or organizations who would be interested in these proposal topics? *We’d love to get their feedback, too.*Consider doing any of the following:

·Forward this “Call To Action” to colleagues and organizations you know working in these areas who may have ideas or feedback to share on the blog.

·Share our proposal draft links (all accessible *here* <http://openinggovernment.us6.list-manage.com/track/click?u=1a990feb5c&id=166e90c780&e=32eced4cfd>*)*, as widely as possible within your networks (e.g., via mailing lists and listservs). Feel free to link to these posts or repost on your website edited to fit your needs!

·Use social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter or Google+ to spread the word about this initiative (use the *#WeCANN *hashtag!).

·To inspire participation and learn how to contribute, watch and share a *video <http://openinggovernment.us6.list-manage.com/track/click?u=1a990feb5c&id=adb2ce10df&e=32eced4cfd>* The GovLab made when we launched this brainstorm.

·Discuss the MSI Panel’s work and proposals in your own communities and share your comments and feedback with the us in the blog comments or at icannmsipanel@thegovlab.org <http://openinggovernment.us6.list-manage.com/track/click?u=1a990feb5c&id=c78...>.

Toward the end of February – we will move into the last stage of this brainstorm – *Stage 3: Collaborative Drafting*. Using a *wiki <http://openinggovernment.us6.list-manage.com/track/click?u=1a990feb5c&id=e89c0b7d3f&e=32eced4cfd>*, we will invite collaborative drafting on a first full draft of all proposals that the Panel will then submit to the ICANN CEO, Board and community. So stay tuned!

For more information, visit The GovLab at www.thegovlab.org <http://openinggovernment.us6.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=1a990feb5c&id=6c...>.

Thanks and best,

/The MSI Panel & The GovLab/

unsubscribe from this list <http://openinggovernment.us6.list-manage.com/unsubscribe?u=1a990feb5c&id=a86...> update subscription preferences <http://openinggovernment.us6.list-manage.com/profile?u=1a990feb5c&id=a862b42...>

-- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.