Robin, on travel support - yes I included it in the summary but forgot it in the tables ! I'll add. Greg, the tables in my draft match the five categories. There are areas of support in each of the five categories. Philip

Hi, I thought that the partial support meant that we, as a group, had reservations that were expressed in the included statements. In the preface we say the the level os support an unanimous. So partial support does not refer to the level of support in the council but rather to the degree to which we unanimously support the recommendation as written in the BWG draft. a. On 26 nov 2007, at 15.57, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

Thanks again Philip. This is looking very good in my opinion, but I still have a four areas of concern.

3. All policy is developed in working groups in place of task forces of Council.

I still don't understand what positive elements in the current task force model would be excluded in a working group model. I would appreciate some explanation here. For the moment at least, I think we should say "Support", not "Partial Support". I have no problem emphasizing the need to include flexibility in the WG model but do not support the suggestion to include 'task forces'.

3.2 Steps to improve effectiveness/ efficiency: proposals for running working groups.

Why only "Partial Support" for this? I think we should say "Support".

4.1b Amend the bylaws to clarify the limited set of “consensus policies” upon which the GNSO may make change.

I think we should say "Support", not "Partial Support".

5.2 Steps to improve effectiveness. The monitoring / oversight role of Council.

Why only "Partial Support" for this? I think we should say "Support".

Chuck Gomes

"This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify sender immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission."

From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 2:18 PM To: Philip Sheppard; Council GNSO Subject: RE: [council] Draft reply Council on GNSO reform

Thank you very much Philip for the very quick turn-around on this and for a job very well done. I inserted my comments in the attached document.

Chuck Gomes

"This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify sender immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission."

From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 9:04 AM To: 'Council GNSO' Subject: [council] Draft reply Council on GNSO reform

As agreed on yesterday's Council call, I promised to draft a short paper as a "straw man" listing those recommendations on GNSO reform that may be supportable by Council as a whole. Given the deadline is submission by 30 November I thought I'd better get a move on.

Not surprisingly those listed are ones seeking: - improvements in policy development and timeline flexibility, - improvements in communications, - improvements in outreach - greater support for constituencies.

I have left out proposals on structural change suspecting we will have differing views.

On working groups, I am proposing a partial support, suspecting we mostly feel they will work for much policy work, but that tying our hands to have ONLY working groups for EVERY issue before us would be too inflexible.

I hope I have captured areas of potential agreement. Your first comments please by November 25 after which time I'll edit a proposed final version. Comments can be as simple as - "yes I/we support" or can be proposals to strike one of the proposed areas of agreement. In that case, a word of explanation would be good to share.

Philip

hi, seems simpler and more understandable. while my tortured sense of logic was fine with the other, i see why this is more understandable especially since we then go and give our qualification. thanks a. On 26 nov 2007, at 20.35, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

So we are sayiing "we unanimously partially support the recommendation"? Sounds a little confusing to me. At the same time, note that in my response to Philip just sent a couple minutes ago, I suggested "Qualified Support". I think it may be an improvement to say "we unanimously support a recommendation with qualifications".

Tom, Tim I certainly have sympathy for trying to be clear on language ! Of course we can strike out the entire section of working groups but that seems a pity if we are all close to agreement and just need to get the words right. Forget the wording of the paper for the moment are you saying Tom and Tim that: a) you support ONLY working groups OR (like the BGC) b) you support mostly working groups for big PDPs but want flexibility for other types of group OR (Council's current wording) c) you want full flexibility for WGS, TFs etc with no special preference for one over the other - its best to decide per issue (more flexible than Council's current wording). It would be helpful to know which of these 3 options are yours (or if I have missed an option). Philip

Hi, I tend to agree. E.g. I support the WG proposal completely and think the proposal allows us the leeway to define them in a way that works and is flexible. I would, therefore, be uncomfortable with a statement that indicated that GNSO had consensus in stating that we feel that we should be wary of WGs. So while I can live with the statement we have that says they need a lot of thought and we want flexibility, I become uncomfortable as we had more caveats. a. On 27 nov 2007, at 13.14, Thomas Keller wrote:

Philip,

I guess the problem is that we all agree on WG but to a different degree. Which leads me to the conclusion that we are not in agreement with the BGC recommendation and that we need further time to refine our statement.

tom

Von: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Philip Sheppard Gesendet: Dienstag, 27. November 2007 10:55 An: 'Council GNSO' Betreff: [council] Draft reply Council on GNSO reform

Tom, Tim I certainly have sympathy for trying to be clear on language !

Of course we can strike out the entire section of working groups but that seems a pity if we are all close to agreement and just need to get the words right.

Forget the wording of the paper for the moment are you saying Tom and Tim that: a) you support ONLY working groups OR (like the BGC) b) you support mostly working groups for big PDPs but want flexibility for other types of group OR (Council's current wording) c) you want full flexibility for WGS, TFs etc with no special preference for one over the other - its best to decide per issue (more flexible than Council's current wording).

It would be helpful to know which of these 3 options are yours (or if I have missed an option).

Philip

I agree with Chucks comments. Best, tom _____ Von: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Gomes, Chuck Gesendet: Montag, 26. November 2007 15:58 An: Gomes, Chuck; Philip Sheppard; Council GNSO Betreff: RE: [council] Draft reply Council on GNSO reform Thanks again Philip. This is looking very good in my opinion, but I still have a four areas of concern. 3. All policy is developed in working groups in place of task forces of Council. I still don't understand what positive elements in the current task force model would be excluded in a working group model. I would appreciate some explanation here. For the moment at least, I think we should say "Support", not "Partial Support". I have no problem emphasizing the need to include flexibility in the WG model but do not support the suggestion to include 'task forces'. 3.2 Steps to improve effectiveness/ efficiency: proposals for running working groups. Why only "Partial Support" for this? I think we should say "Support". 4.1b Amend the bylaws to clarify the limited set of "consensus policies" upon which the GNSO may make change. I think we should say "Support", not "Partial Support". 5.2 Steps to improve effectiveness. The monitoring / oversight role of Council. Why only "Partial Support" for this? I think we should say "Support". Chuck Gomes "This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify sender immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission." _____ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 2:18 PM To: Philip Sheppard; Council GNSO Subject: RE: [council] Draft reply Council on GNSO reform Thank you very much Philip for the very quick turn-around on this and for a job very well done. I inserted my comments in the attached document. Chuck Gomes "This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify sender immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission." _____ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 9:04 AM To: 'Council GNSO' Subject: [council] Draft reply Council on GNSO reform As agreed on yesterday's Council call, I promised to draft a short paper as a "straw man" listing those recommendations on GNSO reform that may be supportable by Council as a whole. Given the deadline is submission by 30 November I thought I'd better get a move on. Not surprisingly those listed are ones seeking: - improvements in policy development and timeline flexibility, - improvements in communications, - improvements in outreach - greater support for constituencies. I have left out proposals on structural change suspecting we will have differing views. On working groups, I am proposing a partial support, suspecting we mostly feel they will work for much policy work, but that tying our hands to have ONLY working groups for EVERY issue before us would be too inflexible. I hope I have captured areas of potential agreement. Your first comments please by November 25 after which time I'll edit a proposed final version. Comments can be as simple as - "yes I/we support" or can be proposals to strike one of the proposed areas of agreement. In that case, a word of explanation would be good to share. Philip

Please see my responses below. Chuck Gomes "This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify sender immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission." ________________________________ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 10:33 AM To: 'Council GNSO' Subject: [council] Draft reply Council on GNSO reform Chuck, Avri, Tom you are right. I have written "partial support" either where the intent of the BGC is unclear and we wish to clarify what we support, or where we go along with the BGC but are adding a word of caution or clarification. If you can think of a better phrase, I'm happy to use it. "Qualified support" / "conditional support" ?? [Gomes, Chuck] I could live with "Qualified support". On the specifics of support to WGs. I understand Council wants flexibility: going along with WGs for most cases but we may choose other means now and again according to the issue. The BGC report is written less flexibly and more reflects the by-laws NOT current Council practice. see opening to section 3 on page 12 (caps are mine): "The BGC recommends that a working group concept becomes the FOUNDATION and FOCAL point for consensus development work in the GNSO AND potentially for other Council activities." This model would constitute an improvement over the the current system." If we think that there may be at least one issue where we would prefer to form a task force of constituency reps, or a committee of the whole of Council, (like we did last week), we need to say this. The BGC report text does not seem to allow for this flexibility. Or if the BGC meant it, they did not write it. [Gomes, Chuck] I am probably being too picky on the reference to 'task forces'. I totally agree on the need for flexibility in the WG model even to include a working group of constituency reps or a committee of the whole but in both cases am concerned about the following: 1) working groups involving just constituency reps and NomCom reps still need to be designed to incorporate more inclusive participation, which of course can happen in a variety of ways instead of just opening up the WG to anyone; 2) I believe it is very critical that we diligently move away from Councilors doing most of the work, so, as I have communicated several times already, I strongly think that initiating Council as the Whole working groups should be done with great caution and should still allow for delegating work to others; 3) using the term 'task force' in my opinion automatically conjures up the task force requirements in the current Bylaws PDP, which are terribly inflexible. Philip

Thanks Avri. Please note my responses below. Chuck Gomes "This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify sender immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission."

-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 9:27 PM To: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Draft reply Council on GNSO reform

Hi,

Thanks for getting this out so quickly.

A possible addition: While I am not sure that we have consensus on the details of proxy voting, might we want to mention that we do want a consideration of proxy voting with details to be worked out during the transition period?

CG: The above seems okay to me.

Other points:

3.1 While I agree in principle with this, I am not sure that the general notion of representation is necessarily the criteria I would emphasise. I would prefer to talk about the appropriateness of the process and perhaps mention the possibility that sometimes a small invited team which is a representative of the relevant stockholders would be a better choice.

CG: Not sure I fully understand your point. To the extent that you may be minimizing the importance of representativeness, I would probably disagree. In my opinion, 'the appropriateness of the process' includes evaluating representativeness. That does not mean that input that is not very representative should not be considered but it does mean that efforts should be made to ensure that vocal minorities should not be able to capture the process. On your last point, I agree that there might be cases where it would be useful to invite a "team which is representative of the relevant stockholders" although I really don't think we should restrict it to "stockholders" unless of course it is VeriSign stock! :)

3.2 I tend to think that putting a lot of responsibility on the WG chair is a good thing. Though I also think, as I mentioned in my personal statement to the BGWG-WG, that the Council retains an important management responsibility for these working groups and that in all cases at least one council member should be assigned to act as a representative steward for the WG and should should share the burden with the WG chair(s) with respective responsibilities. I also think we need to design and document some standard guidelines for WGs that all WG chairs and participants can use and that we need to create a process for the council to provide an appeals function for disputes between WG participants and WG chairs. I believe that for rough consensus to work, it must be possible to appeal the consensus call made by a chair. In this case, I see this as a council responsibility.

CG: Sounds good to me.

Perhaps a reply like:

More thought is needed here, especially on the design of the WG process and on the responsibilities of the council, the chairs and the participants in a WG. Discussions on these issues should be part of the transition process.

CG: This is consistent with my comments on this point.

4.1b: Again I agree with Supporting this but I do not think that representativeness is the issue here. If I understand the architecture they are proposing, the council is the locus for representation, while the WG is the locus for inclusion. WGs are more inclusive, while the council will remain representative of the stakeholders and their interests. I suggest removing the text on representativeness, but leaving the statement of support.

CG: I am okay with leaving the text on representativeness but doing so in a way that does not eliminate the locus for inclusion.

5.2 I think this is a critical point. I think it is important to emphasise that the council needs to be responsible for more then just process management but is responsible for policy management. While this may not be a legislative function, i am not sure it is that now, it is certainly critical that the council not lose its ability to make policy recommendations and that it not be restricted to just passing on the work of the working groups. At the very least the policy work of many WGs must be coordinated so as to not produce contradictory recommendations. I wonder if we can't add something that says:

We think it is important that the policy management role of the council not be abrogated or diminished.

CG: Works for me.

thanks again,

a.

On 21 nov 2007, at 09.03, Philip Sheppard wrote:

...

As agreed on yesterday's Council call, I promised to draft a short paper as a "straw man" listing those recommendations on GNSO reform that may be supportable by Council as a whole. Given the deadline is submission by 30 November I thought I'd better get a move on.

Not surprisingly those listed are ones seeking: - improvements in policy development and timeline flexibility, - improvements in communications, - improvements in outreach - greater support for constituencies.

I have left out proposals on structural change suspecting we will have differing views.

On working groups, I am proposing a partial support, suspecting we mostly feel they will work for much policy work, but that tying our hands to have ONLY working groups for EVERY issue before us would be too inflexible.

I hope I have captured areas of potential agreement. Your first comments please by November 25 after which time I'll edit a proposed final version. Comments can be as simple as - "yes I/we support" or can be proposals to strike one of the proposed areas of agreement. In that case, a word of explanation would be good to share.

Philip <GNSO reply reform proposals 2007v1.doc>