I am not convinced that we cannot create a more definite plan while still having the caveat that the plan is a living document. In that regard, I inserted some comments below. Chuck

-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard Sent: Friday, November 21, 2008 7:23 AM To: 'Council GNSO' Subject: [council] Council restructuring

As agreed on yesterday's call here is a proposed response to the ICANN Board for its Dec 11 meeting regarding progress. Philip -----------------------------------------------

The GNSO is pleased to report it is making substantial progress on GNSO reform issues. This progress is manifest at the Constituency level from both existing and in-formation constituencies who are working on the required changes. At the level of Council a structure has been adopted with two steering groups and underlying work teams to deal with the key operational and policy changes (reference).

Staff have prepared a preliminary checklist of activities (attached) that is under discussion in Council with a view to adopting this checklist with the following changes: a) prioritisation

CG - Here are my thoughts regarding prioritization: 1) My understanding is that the plan due on 11 December is just for the GNSO Council Restructure, i.e., the implementation of the bicameral voting structure in the Council by June. This is a critical point of understanding because I personally believe that the full implementation of all the GNSO improvements recommended by the Board will take longer than that. Therefore, the plan under discussion here should be separate from the plans developed by the two steering committees and the working teams they create. In my opinion, there are few if any reasons why the bicameral structure cannot be implemented regardless of the progress of the implementation of the other GNSO Improvements. Obviously, for the impact of the changes to have maximum effect, the GNSO Improvement recommendations must also be implemented, but if those take longer than June, it would not limit the ability to implement the bicameral voting structure because essentially we are just changing the makeup and voting rights on the Council. 2) I also think that priorities will be basically determined by dependencies. 3) The first and in my view the most important dependencies are the tasks associated with the four Stakeholder Group organizations because the new bicameral voting structure of the Council cannot happen if the SGs are not functioning. Those tasks for each SG are as follows: i) develop the charter; ii) obtain Board approval; iii) establish the SG; iv) elect Council representatives. 3) The second, and I think less signficant dependencies involve the tasks associated with certification of existing constituencies and formation of new constituencies. These tasks include: i) preparing certification documents; ii) obtaining Board approval; iii) implementing any changes made. These obviously impact the SGs but I do not believe that implementing the bicameral voting structure is totally dependent on the full completion of constituency tasks. If constituencies, existing or new, have not totally completed their work before June, interim procedures could be put in place within the SGs to accommodate that. Of course, it will be essential that SG charters are designed in a way to handle that, but I think they will have to be designed that way anyway to be able to accommodate constituency changes going forward including the addition and deletion of constituencies and modifications within constituencies. 4) The future SG and constituency members will have the primary responsibility for performing the tasks in 2) and 3). The Council will simply have and oversight and coordination role as well as a reporting goal to the Board. 5) There are some other tasks that also have dependencies. For example the ability to elect a Council chair will depend on the completion of the task of developing a procedure for electing a chair if we do not succeed in getting 60% approval by both houses. 6) In my opinion then, the priorities are: i) develop, obtain approval and implement SG charters; ii) ensure that constituencies complete their tasks sufficiently enough to support the SG model; iii) develop a procedure for electing a chair if we do not succeed in getting 60% approval by both houses; iv) ensure that the GNSO Rules of Procedure are revised to accommodate the bicameral model before June; v) develop a transition plan for the time from when the new bicameral Council is seated until the chair and vice chairs are elected; vi) seat Councilors in the bicameral Council; vii) elect Chair and vice chairs. Note that these are not sequential in all cases; some should happen in parallel.

b) Interim transitional changes necessary to meet the June 2009 deadline to put in place an interim functional Council

CG - Between now and June, I am assuming that we will continue to function under our current rules and procedures. Am I incorrect about that? If I am correct on that, then we need to develop a transition plan for the time from when the new bicameral Council is seated until the chair and vice chairs are elected. In my opinion, that could be as simple as asking the chair and vice chair that we are about to elect to serve a little longer past June until the new officers are elected by the bicameral Council.

c) longer term changes necessary to fully implement the required reform.

CG - As I said above, I believe this for the most part should be separate from the plan we need to submit on 11 December. There is at least one item from the GNSO Improvements efforts that will have impact on implementing the bicameral structure: revising GNSO Rules of Procedure as needed. This task will likely be handled by a working team to be formed by the OSC (GNSO Operations Working Team), so it seems reasonable for the Council to ensure this task is completed before June.

The Council will follow certain principles in this process: 1. Leadership elections will be de novo based on the enfranchised new interim body 2. Full outreach and bottom up discussion at each stage of transition.

Timetable At present Council believes the June 2009 deadline is achievable but that will be ultimately determined by the cooperation and capacity of the GNSO's underlying volunteer bodies as well as staff resources. Council will inform the Board in due course if it believes there will be any slippage in this aspiration.

CG - I think the plan to be submitted on 11 December, should have estimated target start and completion dates for each of the prioitized tasks and any subtasks as possible.

Thanks for the response Philip. Please note my responses below. Chuck

-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard Sent: Friday, November 21, 2008 11:18 AM To: 'Council GNSO' Subject: RE: [council] Council restructuring

Chuck, probably all true.

Two thoughts: - there is no point have a lovely new bi cameral council in June if it is impotent as its related PDP is unfinished.

To what PDP are you referring? If you are referring to the GNSO Improvements effort, the state of progress of the GNSO Improvements effort should not make the bicameral Council impotent. We would simply be voting on policy recommendations developed under the old model.

- what you write will help our discussion but need not change our note to the Board.

Agreed but I think it would be good to attached the latest state of the proposed schedule with priorities, etc.

Philip