Hello All, Following the GNSO Public Forum in Sao Paulo I have heard of instances where interested parties that wish to join the IDN working group have been unable to join a constituency in order to participate. The ICANN bylaws do provide the ability for a group of interested stakeholders to form a new constituency: "4. Any group of individuals or entities may petition the Board for recognition as a new or separate Constituency. Any such petition shall contain a detailed explanation of: a. Why the addition of such a Constituency will improve the ability of the GNSO to carry out its policy-development responsibilities; and b. Why the proposed new Constituency would adequately represent, on a global basis, the stakeholders it seeks to represent. Any petition for the recognition of a new Constituency shall be posted for public comment. 5. The Board may create new Constituencies in response to such a petition, or on its own motion, if it determines that such action would serve the purposes of ICANN. In the event the Board is considering acting on its own motion it shall post a detailed explanation of why such action is necessary or desirable, set a reasonable time for public comment, and not make a final decision on whether to create such new Constituency until after reviewing all comments received. Whenever the Board posts a petition or recommendation for a new Constituency for public comment, it shall notify the GNSO Council and shall consider any response to that notification prior to taking action." I am not aware of a group that has chosen to try to form a new constituency. To get the best policy outcomes however I feel with should be as inclusive as possible, whilst ensuring that members of working groups are contributing in a positive way. It seems to me that we need a process to handle requests for participation: (1) Determine if the participant would be eligible to join a GNSO constituency. If they are eligible - require them first to join and then allow participation. (2) If a participant is ineligible to join a constituency, then direct the participant to a process to determine if they are suitable as an "expert". The applicant would need to provide a detailed statement of (i) qualifications and relevant experience; and (ii) potential conflicts of interest. The ICANN staff would need to verify the statement of qualifications and experience, and perhaps we have a process where the experts are appointed by majority vote of the GNSO Council. The experts would be non-voting members of the working group. I would be interested in hearing from other Council members on an appropriate process that could apply to all working groups. Regards, Bruce Tonkin
Hello Bruce & Council, The following step may be a useful one to have in addition to
(2) If a participant is ineligible to join a constituency, then direct the participant to a process to determine if they are suitable as an "expert".
However, it may be desirable, useful and healthy to have the GNSO Council involved one way or the other in the Constituency membership formation. This is to avoid that a constituency becomes a like-minded clique that would tend to refuse membership to parties on the ground of fantasist reasons, or even worse, with the intent to exclude differences from their worldview and particular interests. This leads to a de facto privatization of the principe and function of the Constituency, instead of it being the Home for the whole global community of interest and practice (relevant to each constituency identity) from where they could meaningfully participate in the ICANN policy processes. The involvement of the Council needs not to be at the whole level of its own membership, or to supersede the Constituency role of evaluating membership applications. It may be done at the level of a Council's sub-Committee, for example, that will check if the objective membership criteria in a constituency's bylaws are met or not by the applicants, examine further the disputed decisions on the motivated request of the applicant, and provide final recommendations. If deemed necessary, the process could go as far as calling for public comments including some sort of reputation check from the community, etc. After all this doesn't need to be kept secret, and it might even be a good outreach policy for the GNSO and its constituencies. Those are just initial ideas. The Council may of course change/adapt the implementation details after discussion. Regards, Mawaki --- Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> wrote:
Hello All,
Following the GNSO Public Forum in Sao Paulo I have heard of instances where interested parties that wish to join the IDN working group have been unable to join a constituency in order to participate.
The ICANN bylaws do provide the ability for a group of interested stakeholders to form a new constituency:
"4. Any group of individuals or entities may petition the Board for recognition as a new or separate Constituency. Any such petition shall contain a detailed explanation of:
a. Why the addition of such a Constituency will improve the ability of the GNSO to carry out its policy-development responsibilities; and
b. Why the proposed new Constituency would adequately represent, on a global basis, the stakeholders it seeks to represent.
Any petition for the recognition of a new Constituency shall be posted for public comment.
5. The Board may create new Constituencies in response to such a petition, or on its own motion, if it determines that such action would serve the purposes of ICANN. In the event the Board is considering acting on its own motion it shall post a detailed explanation of why such action is necessary or desirable, set a reasonable time for public comment, and not make a final decision on whether to create such new Constituency until after reviewing all comments received. Whenever the Board posts a petition or recommendation for a new Constituency for public comment, it shall notify the GNSO Council and shall consider any response to that notification prior to taking action."
I am not aware of a group that has chosen to try to form a new constituency.
To get the best policy outcomes however I feel with should be as inclusive as possible, whilst ensuring that members of working groups are contributing in a positive way.
It seems to me that we need a process to handle requests for participation:
(1) Determine if the participant would be eligible to join a GNSO constituency. If they are eligible - require them first to join and then allow participation.
(2) If a participant is ineligible to join a constituency, then direct the participant to a process to determine if they are suitable as an "expert". The applicant would need to provide a detailed statement of (i) qualifications and relevant experience; and (ii) potential conflicts of interest. The ICANN staff would need to verify the statement of qualifications and experience, and perhaps we have a process where the experts are appointed by majority vote of the GNSO Council. The experts would be non-voting members of the working group.
I would be interested in hearing from other Council members on an appropriate process that could apply to all working groups.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
Whereas I agree with Mawaki that monitoring and enforcement of Bylaws requirements regarding membership criteria probably should be done, I have reservations about the Council doing that. I think that could distract from our need to have good working relationships. I think that that would be a better roll for ICANN staff because it is their responsibility to make sure the Bylaws are followed. Maybe a compliance function needs to be set up in this regard; it could probably be a part time responsibility fulfilled by staff supporting other compliance programs. 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 Mawaki Chango Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 7:50 AM To: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Regarding working group membership
Hello Bruce & Council,
The following step may be a useful one to have in addition to
(2) If a participant is ineligible to join a constituency, then direct the participant to a process to determine if they are suitable as an "expert".
However, it may be desirable, useful and healthy to have the GNSO Council involved one way or the other in the Constituency membership formation. This is to avoid that a constituency becomes a like-minded clique that would tend to refuse membership to parties on the ground of fantasist reasons, or even worse, with the intent to exclude differences from their worldview and particular interests. This leads to a de facto privatization of the principe and function of the Constituency, instead of it being the Home for the whole global community of interest and practice (relevant to each constituency identity) from where they could meaningfully participate in the ICANN policy processes.
The involvement of the Council needs not to be at the whole level of its own membership, or to supersede the Constituency role of evaluating membership applications. It may be done at the level of a Council's sub-Committee, for example, that will check if the objective membership criteria in a constituency's bylaws are met or not by the applicants, examine further the disputed decisions on the motivated request of the applicant, and provide final recommendations. If deemed necessary, the process could go as far as calling for public comments including some sort of reputation check from the community, etc. After all this doesn't need to be kept secret, and it might even be a good outreach policy for the GNSO and its constituencies.
Those are just initial ideas. The Council may of course change/adapt the implementation details after discussion.
Regards,
Mawaki
--- Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> wrote:
Hello All,
Following the GNSO Public Forum in Sao Paulo I have heard of instances where interested parties that wish to join the IDN working group have been unable to join a constituency in order to participate.
The ICANN bylaws do provide the ability for a group of interested stakeholders to form a new constituency:
"4. Any group of individuals or entities may petition the Board for recognition as a new or separate Constituency. Any such petition shall contain a detailed explanation of:
a. Why the addition of such a Constituency will improve the ability of the GNSO to carry out its policy-development responsibilities; and
b. Why the proposed new Constituency would adequately represent, on a global basis, the stakeholders it seeks to represent.
Any petition for the recognition of a new Constituency shall be posted for public comment.
5. The Board may create new Constituencies in response to such a petition, or on its own motion, if it determines that such action would serve the purposes of ICANN. In the event the Board is considering acting on its own motion it shall post a detailed explanation of why such action is necessary or desirable, set a reasonable time for public comment, and not make a final decision on whether to create such new Constituency until after reviewing all comments received. Whenever the Board posts a petition or recommendation for a new Constituency for public comment, it shall notify the GNSO Council and shall consider any response to that notification prior to taking action."
I am not aware of a group that has chosen to try to form a new constituency.
To get the best policy outcomes however I feel with should be as inclusive as possible, whilst ensuring that members of working groups are contributing in a positive way.
It seems to me that we need a process to handle requests for participation:
(1) Determine if the participant would be eligible to join a GNSO constituency. If they are eligible - require them first to join and then allow participation.
(2) If a participant is ineligible to join a constituency, then direct the participant to a process to determine if they are suitable as an "expert". The applicant would need to provide a detailed statement of (i) qualifications and relevant experience; and (ii) potential conflicts of interest. The ICANN staff would need to verify the statement of qualifications and experience, and perhaps we have a process where the experts are appointed by majority vote of the GNSO Council. The experts would be non-voting members of the working group.
I would be interested in hearing from other Council members on an appropriate process that could apply to all working groups.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
On 19-Feb-07, at 10:57 PM, Bruce Tonkin wrote:
I have heard of instances where interested parties that wish to join the IDN working group have been unable to join a constituency in order to participate.
Bruce - Thanks for the recap and proposal. The framework you've outlined only goes part of the way towards solving the problem. As long as the GNSO is populated with constituencies that have very narrow membership criteria we will continue to encounter parties that are unable to participate in working groups. I do not believe that it is the role of the Council to act as the general manager of the constituencies, but the council has a strong interest in ensuring the proper function of its working groups as we strive to ensure the integrity of our policy development process. In this situation, the interests of the constituencies (preserve a very narrow membership criteria so as not to dilute the lobbying position of the original stakeholder groups) and the interests of the Council (ensure a diversity of voices to underpin a broad consensus around key policies) are at odds. Until such time that the constituencies can provide the diversity of input that our processes require, we should seriously consider implementing a temporary framework that would allow for greater participation in the working groups and task forces without the high bar that qualifying as an expert (or creating a new constituency) requires in situations where a stakeholder has applied for membership in a constituency, but does not qualify due to the narrow qualification criteria employed by a constituency. Regards, Ross Rader Director, Retail Services t. 416.538.5492 c. 416.828.8783 http://www.domaindirect.com "To solve the problems of today, we must focus on tomorrow." - Erik Nupponen
In my opinion, Ross makes some very important points that I further comment on 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 Ross Rader Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 9:25 AM To: Bruce Tonkin Cc: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Regarding working group membership
On 19-Feb-07, at 10:57 PM, Bruce Tonkin wrote:
I have heard of instances where interested parties that wish to join the IDN working group have been unable to join a constituency in order to participate.
Bruce -
Thanks for the recap and proposal.
The framework you've outlined only goes part of the way towards solving the problem. As long as the GNSO is populated with constituencies that have very narrow membership criteria we will continue to encounter parties that are unable to participate in working groups. I do not believe that it is the role of the Council to act as the general manager of the constituencies, but the council has a strong interest in ensuring the proper function of its working groups as we strive to ensure the integrity of our policy development process.
It seems to me that it would be wise for us as a Council to explore the issue of 'very narrow membership criteria' for constituencies. I am not sure it was ever intended or should have been intended for constituencies to make membership criteria narrower than that defined in the bylaws. Regarding the 'proper function of its working groups' I personally believe that that is more a function of clearly written statements of work and work group leadership than it is rigid membership requirements. The key in my mind to enlist working group members who are interested in the subject and willing and able to devote sufficient time to the effort to be a constructive member. If the goal is to reach rough consensus positions rather than reaching majority of super majority support, voting should be less of an issue. If rough consensus cannot be reached, that is a legitimate outcome. With regard to 'integrity of our policy development process', the most important factor in my opinion is to make sure that as many varying viewpoints as possible are represented. It doesn't matter whether they come from constituency members or others. If people with different points of view can collaboratively come up rough consensus positions, then something good will have been accomplished. If they cannot do that, then maybe the issue should be left to market mechanisms.
In this situation, the interests of the constituencies (preserve a very narrow membership criteria so as not to dilute the lobbying position of the original stakeholder groups) and the interests of the Council (ensure a diversity of voices to underpin a broad consensus around key policies) are at odds.
As I said above, I do not believe that constituency membership criteria should be any narrower than defined in the Bylaws. If a constituency decides to make membership more restrictive, then it should be required to submit a new charter for approval.
Until such time that the constituencies can provide the diversity of input that our processes require, we should seriously consider implementing a temporary framework that would allow for greater participation in the working groups and task forces without the high bar that qualifying as an expert (or creating a new constituency) requires in situations where a stakeholder has applied for membership in a constituency, but does not qualify due to the narrow qualification criteria employed by a constituency.
I don't understand why we would require someone to be an expert before allowing participation in a working group if they are not a constituency member. If they can constructively contribute to the effort and bring new points of view from the broader community, then they should be welcome because that will add increased legitimacy to the process.
Regards,
Ross Rader Director, Retail Services t. 416.538.5492 c. 416.828.8783 http://www.domaindirect.com
"To solve the problems of today, we must focus on tomorrow." - Erik Nupponen
Hello Ross,
Until such time that the constituencies can provide the diversity of input that our processes require, we should seriously consider implementing a temporary framework that would allow for greater participation in the working groups and task forces without the high bar that qualifying as an expert (or creating a new constituency) requires in situations where a stakeholder has applied for membership in a constituency, but does not qualify due to the narrow qualification criteria employed by a constituency.
I have had the opportunity to discuss this idea with a few people in Marina Del Ray (but unfortunately didn't get time for a wider discussion with the whole group). I note that with the new gTLD committee we have supported the participation of observers in the physical meetings including listening to their views on issues. I therefore recommend the following: "Observers: Observers shall not be members of or entitled to vote on the working group, but otherwise shall be entitled to participate on equal footing with members of the working group. In particular observers will be able to join the mailing list, and attend teleconferences or physical meetings." To guard against some of the behaviour that can occur with unregulated mailing lists, observers must provide their real name, organisation (if associated with an organisation) and contact details to the GNSO secretariat, and the GNSO secretariat will verify at least their email address and phone contact information. Observers will also be requested to provide a public statement of interest, as for working group members. Where a person joins an already established working group, this will be on the basis that it is their responsibility to read the existing documents, listen to teleconference recordings, and read the mailing list discussions before commenting on topics that have already been dealt with by the working group. Note that staff should still encourage participants to join one of the established GNSO constituencies where the observer appears to meet the criteria for membership. Please let me know if you have any issues or changes to make on this suggestion over the next 7 days, otherwise I will direct staff to allow observers. This will be fairly consistent with how we have handled liaisons in the past. E.g From the ICANN bylaws: "There may also be two liaisons to the GNSO Council, one appointed by each of the Governmental Advisory Committee and the At-Large Advisory Committee from time to time, who shall not be members of or entitled to vote on the GNSO Council, but otherwise shall be entitled to participate on equal footing with members of the GNSO Council. " Regards, Bruce Tonkin
This seems most practical. I support Philip
I therefore recommend the following:
"Observers: Observers shall not be members of or entitled to vote on the working group, but otherwise shall be entitled to participate on equal footing with members of the working group. In particular observers will be able to join the mailing list, and attend teleconferences or physical meetings."
Bruce, Does the response you gave to Ross address my later request on the same?
Observers: Observers shall not be members of or entitled to vote on the
working group, but otherwise shall be entitled to participate on equal footing with members of the working group. In particular observers will be able to join the mailing list, and attend teleconferences or physical meetings."
Note that staff should still encourage participants to join one of the
established GNSO constituencies where the observer appears to meet the criteria for membership
May I inform the above group from Russia and Iran as well as others to refer to the above for joining the IDN WG? I would also like to ask for the council to raise the topic of creating an IDN constituancy or similar to advance the issues of IDNs. Regards, Sophia On 24/02/07, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> wrote:
Hello Ross,
Until such time that the constituencies can provide the diversity of input that our processes require, we should seriously consider implementing a temporary framework that would allow for greater participation in the working groups and task forces without the high bar that qualifying as an expert (or creating a new constituency) requires in situations where a stakeholder has applied for membership in a constituency, but does not qualify due to the narrow qualification criteria employed by a constituency.
I have had the opportunity to discuss this idea with a few people in Marina Del Ray (but unfortunately didn't get time for a wider discussion with the whole group).
I note that with the new gTLD committee we have supported the participation of observers in the physical meetings including listening to their views on issues.
I therefore recommend the following:
"Observers: Observers shall not be members of or entitled to vote on the working group, but otherwise shall be entitled to participate on equal footing with members of the working group. In particular observers will be able to join the mailing list, and attend teleconferences or physical meetings."
To guard against some of the behaviour that can occur with unregulated mailing lists, observers must provide their real name, organisation (if associated with an organisation) and contact details to the GNSO secretariat, and the GNSO secretariat will verify at least their email address and phone contact information. Observers will also be requested to provide a public statement of interest, as for working group members.
Where a person joins an already established working group, this will be on the basis that it is their responsibility to read the existing documents, listen to teleconference recordings, and read the mailing list discussions before commenting on topics that have already been dealt with by the working group.
Note that staff should still encourage participants to join one of the established GNSO constituencies where the observer appears to meet the criteria for membership.
Please let me know if you have any issues or changes to make on this suggestion over the next 7 days, otherwise I will direct staff to allow observers. This will be fairly consistent with how we have handled liaisons in the past.
E.g From the ICANN bylaws:
"There may also be two liaisons to the GNSO Council, one appointed by each of the Governmental Advisory Committee and the At-Large Advisory Committee from time to time, who shall not be members of or entitled to vote on the GNSO Council, but otherwise shall be entitled to participate on equal footing with members of the GNSO Council. "
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
Bruce, Your suggested approach seems to be on a sound track. We need to maintain a balance of openness and effectiveness. In that regard, we may want to consider some means of dealing with non-constructive behavior both for observers and members. I am not saying that because of any problems I have seen in recent task forces and working groups because I haven't. It may be that the chairs of task forces and working groups can successfully manage non-constructive behavior; in fact, I would suggest that that is where it should start. But if any such behavior continues after requests for change, there may need to be means of removing members or observers. I don't think it would be too hard to build in checks and balances so that people are not unfairly removed. 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 Bruce Tonkin Sent: Saturday, February 24, 2007 5:06 PM To: Council GNSO Subject: RE: [council] Regarding working group membership
Hello Ross,
Until such time that the constituencies can provide the
input that our processes require, we should seriously consider implementing a temporary framework that would allow for greater participation in the working groups and task forces without
diversity of the high
bar that qualifying as an expert (or creating a new constituency) requires in situations where a stakeholder has applied for membership in a constituency, but does not qualify due to the narrow qualification criteria employed by a constituency.
I have had the opportunity to discuss this idea with a few people in Marina Del Ray (but unfortunately didn't get time for a wider discussion with the whole group).
I note that with the new gTLD committee we have supported the participation of observers in the physical meetings including listening to their views on issues.
I therefore recommend the following:
"Observers: Observers shall not be members of or entitled to vote on the working group, but otherwise shall be entitled to participate on equal footing with members of the working group. In particular observers will be able to join the mailing list, and attend teleconferences or physical meetings."
To guard against some of the behaviour that can occur with unregulated mailing lists, observers must provide their real name, organisation (if associated with an organisation) and contact details to the GNSO secretariat, and the GNSO secretariat will verify at least their email address and phone contact information. Observers will also be requested to provide a public statement of interest, as for working group members.
Where a person joins an already established working group, this will be on the basis that it is their responsibility to read the existing documents, listen to teleconference recordings, and read the mailing list discussions before commenting on topics that have already been dealt with by the working group.
Note that staff should still encourage participants to join one of the established GNSO constituencies where the observer appears to meet the criteria for membership.
Please let me know if you have any issues or changes to make on this suggestion over the next 7 days, otherwise I will direct staff to allow observers. This will be fairly consistent with how we have handled liaisons in the past.
E.g From the ICANN bylaws:
"There may also be two liaisons to the GNSO Council, one appointed by each of the Governmental Advisory Committee and the At-Large Advisory Committee from time to time, who shall not be members of or entitled to vote on the GNSO Council, but otherwise shall be entitled to participate on equal footing with members of the GNSO Council. "
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
Hello Chuck,
In that regard, we may want to consider some means of dealing with non-constructive behavior both for observers and members.
I tend to agree that a chair should attempt to deal with inappropriate behaviour, bearing in mind the wishes of the whole group. Ie the decision is not made autocratically, but based on documented guidelines for acceptable behaviour as well as seeking the views of other members of the group. I think the Council then is simply able to deal with issues on an appeal basis - which could be handled in a similar way to that of the Board appeal mechanisms - e.g a subgroup of the Council can investigate and report to the whole Council. However - I would hope that these situations are rare events. The best approach is to stop inappropriate behaviour as soon as it happens, rather than let it gradually grow amongst multiple participants (ie such behaviour tends to escalate). If a problem is let run too long, then you will always be blamed for singling out one person, when other people have also been behaving inappropriately. The rough rule of thumb is that was is not acceptable in a small face-to-face environment in terms of language and courtesy is not acceptable in a telephone conference or mailing list when people are further apart. I have noticed that when a group of people have been "fighting" amongst themselves on a mailing list and then meet face-to-face, the bad feelings are often carried over. In contrast where a group has initially met face-to-face a few times and the group members have built some respect for each others opinions and good intentions, then mailing lists discussions are generally much more civil. For example, the Council meets face-to-face as a group regularly, as do most of the more active members of the registrar constituency. Subsequently mailing list and teleconference discussions tend to be fairly civil despite the fact that the participants may be strong competitors in business, or have strongly opposing views on a matter. Regards, Bruce Tonkin
Well said Bruce. 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 Bruce Tonkin Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 4:37 PM To: Council GNSO Subject: [council] Regarding dealing with inappropriate behaviour
Hello Chuck,
In that regard, we may want to consider some means of dealing with non-constructive behavior both for observers and members.
I tend to agree that a chair should attempt to deal with inappropriate behaviour, bearing in mind the wishes of the whole group. Ie the decision is not made autocratically, but based on documented guidelines for acceptable behaviour as well as seeking the views of other members of the group.
I think the Council then is simply able to deal with issues on an appeal basis - which could be handled in a similar way to that of the Board appeal mechanisms - e.g a subgroup of the Council can investigate and report to the whole Council.
However - I would hope that these situations are rare events. The best approach is to stop inappropriate behaviour as soon as it happens, rather than let it gradually grow amongst multiple participants (ie such behaviour tends to escalate). If a problem is let run too long, then you will always be blamed for singling out one person, when other people have also been behaving inappropriately.
The rough rule of thumb is that was is not acceptable in a small face-to-face environment in terms of language and courtesy is not acceptable in a telephone conference or mailing list when people are further apart.
I have noticed that when a group of people have been "fighting" amongst themselves on a mailing list and then meet face-to-face, the bad feelings are often carried over. In contrast where a group has initially met face-to-face a few times and the group members have built some respect for each others opinions and good intentions, then mailing lists discussions are generally much more civil. For example, the Council meets face-to-face as a group regularly, as do most of the more active members of the registrar constituency. Subsequently mailing list and teleconference discussions tend to be fairly civil despite the fact that the participants may be strong competitors in business, or have strongly opposing views on a matter.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
Bruce, Though I appreciate your experience and valuable input below, I don't even understand how we've got to debating about excluding people for inappropriate behavior. Has some such thing happened in one of the WG, or are we pre-suspecting that some people may not be civil? Any reason for that? I an only regret that council members spend their valuable time on this whole topic of WG membership, failing to clearly address some legitimate questions at inception. Bruce, allow me to remind us of a couple of points: 1) The distinction you made between WG and TF, while setting up the IDN WG: the WGs are not policy-making or even policy-recommendation group (e.g., they may conduct straw polls, but that is not a vote on a decision.) They are meant to clarify issues and identify those the WG members think the Council should examine further for, possibly, policy recommendations (through PDP or simple/single resolutions,) etc. As a consequence, I'd like to clarify that the choices made by a WG should not preclude by any means the possibility for the Council to further discuss or examine an issue left out of the WG report or proposals, especially at the motivated request of any council member. 2) In "designing aloud" (so to speak) the WG general rules (I must say I don't like this piecemeal approach we seem to adopt,) apart from the size problem, I don't necessarily see why the membership shouldn't be open to any interesting parties (especially in the light of the WG function recalled above.) I was told that was the case in the old DNSO days, and maybe even early GNSO ones, and I'm not under the impression that we've been dramatically more efficient since then (I consider respectability, visibility or level of profile a different point.) I don't think the observer category resolve any problem. We could rather consider the following principles: - ensure to each constituency a minimum number of seats (e.g., 3) - open the membership to any interested party or individual (maybe subject to a statement of purpose and interests, etc.) - define a maximum size for a WG. That size needs not to be one fixed number but a range of numbers. Or if we want to make the procedure clear cut, we could also ask the constituencies to submit whether they wish to retain their minimum number of seats and fill them in at a later stage, or they wish to give them up. But those are implementations details that can be refined or crafted one way or the other. Best, Mawaki --- Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> wrote:
Hello Chuck,
In that regard, we may want to consider some means of dealing with non-constructive behavior both for observers and members.
I tend to agree that a chair should attempt to deal with inappropriate behaviour, bearing in mind the wishes of the whole group. Ie the decision is not made autocratically, but based on documented guidelines for acceptable behaviour as well as seeking the views of other members of the group.
I think the Council then is simply able to deal with issues on an appeal basis - which could be handled in a similar way to that of the Board appeal mechanisms - e.g a subgroup of the Council can investigate and report to the whole Council.
However - I would hope that these situations are rare events. The best approach is to stop inappropriate behaviour as soon as it happens, rather than let it gradually grow amongst multiple participants (ie such behaviour tends to escalate). If a problem is let run too long, then you will always be blamed for singling out one person, when other people have also been behaving inappropriately.
The rough rule of thumb is that was is not acceptable in a small face-to-face environment in terms of language and courtesy is not acceptable in a telephone conference or mailing list when people are further apart.
I have noticed that when a group of people have been "fighting" amongst themselves on a mailing list and then meet face-to-face, the bad feelings are often carried over. In contrast where a group has initially met face-to-face a few times and the group members have built some respect for each others opinions and good intentions, then mailing lists discussions are generally much more civil. For example, the Council meets face-to-face as a group regularly, as do most of the more active members of the registrar constituency. Subsequently mailing list and teleconference discussions tend to be fairly civil despite the fact that the participants may be strong competitors in business, or have strongly opposing views on a matter.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
an only regret that council members spend their valuable time on this whole topic of WG membership, failing to clearly address some legitimate questions at inception
I utterly agree with this statement. Also completely fail to see who is misbehaving in this instance, and the attention given to its deliberations on potentiality! S On 01/03/07, Mawaki Chango <ki_chango@yahoo.com> wrote:
Bruce,
Though I appreciate your experience and valuable input below, I don't even understand how we've got to debating about excluding people for inappropriate behavior. Has some such thing happened in one of the WG, or are we pre-suspecting that some people may not be civil? Any reason for that?
I an only regret that council members spend their valuable time on this whole topic of WG membership, failing to clearly address some legitimate questions at inception.
Bruce, allow me to remind us of a couple of points:
1) The distinction you made between WG and TF, while setting up the IDN WG: the WGs are not policy-making or even policy-recommendation group (e.g., they may conduct straw polls, but that is not a vote on a decision.) They are meant to clarify issues and identify those the WG members think the Council should examine further for, possibly, policy recommendations (through PDP or simple/single resolutions,) etc. As a consequence, I'd like to clarify that the choices made by a WG should not preclude by any means the possibility for the Council to further discuss or examine an issue left out of the WG report or proposals, especially at the motivated request of any council member.
2) In "designing aloud" (so to speak) the WG general rules (I must say I don't like this piecemeal approach we seem to adopt,) apart from the size problem, I don't necessarily see why the membership shouldn't be open to any interesting parties (especially in the light of the WG function recalled above.) I was told that was the case in the old DNSO days, and maybe even early GNSO ones, and I'm not under the impression that we've been dramatically more efficient since then (I consider respectability, visibility or level of profile a different point.) I don't think the observer category resolve any problem. We could rather consider the following principles: - ensure to each constituency a minimum number of seats (e.g., 3) - open the membership to any interested party or individual (maybe subject to a statement of purpose and interests, etc.) - define a maximum size for a WG.
That size needs not to be one fixed number but a range of numbers. Or if we want to make the procedure clear cut, we could also ask the constituencies to submit whether they wish to retain their minimum number of seats and fill them in at a later stage, or they wish to give them up. But those are implementations details that can be refined or crafted one way or the other.
Best,
Mawaki
--- Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> wrote:
Hello Chuck,
In that regard, we may want to consider some means of dealing with non-constructive behavior both for observers and members.
I tend to agree that a chair should attempt to deal with inappropriate behaviour, bearing in mind the wishes of the whole group. Ie the decision is not made autocratically, but based on documented guidelines for acceptable behaviour as well as seeking the views of other members of the group.
I think the Council then is simply able to deal with issues on an appeal basis - which could be handled in a similar way to that of the Board appeal mechanisms - e.g a subgroup of the Council can investigate and report to the whole Council.
However - I would hope that these situations are rare events. The best approach is to stop inappropriate behaviour as soon as it happens, rather than let it gradually grow amongst multiple participants (ie such behaviour tends to escalate). If a problem is let run too long, then you will always be blamed for singling out one person, when other people have also been behaving inappropriately.
The rough rule of thumb is that was is not acceptable in a small face-to-face environment in terms of language and courtesy is not acceptable in a telephone conference or mailing list when people are further apart.
I have noticed that when a group of people have been "fighting" amongst themselves on a mailing list and then meet face-to-face, the bad feelings are often carried over. In contrast where a group has initially met face-to-face a few times and the group members have built some respect for each others opinions and good intentions, then mailing lists discussions are generally much more civil. For example, the Council meets face-to-face as a group regularly, as do most of the more active members of the registrar constituency. Subsequently mailing list and teleconference discussions tend to be fairly civil despite the fact that the participants may be strong competitors in business, or have strongly opposing views on a matter.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
For those of us who have been around for awhile, we have definitely encountered situtations where group members were not constructive but rather were disruptive. 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 Sophia B Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 8:43 PM To: Mawaki Chango Cc: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Regarding dealing with inappropriate behaviour an only regret that council members spend their valuable time on this whole topic of WG membership, failing to clearly address some legitimate questions at inception I utterly agree with this statement. Also completely fail to see who is misbehaving in this instance, and the attention given to its deliberations on potentiality! S On 01/03/07, Mawaki Chango <ki_chango@yahoo.com> wrote: Bruce, Though I appreciate your experience and valuable input below, I don't even understand how we've got to debating about excluding people for inappropriate behavior. Has some such thing happened in one of the WG, or are we pre-suspecting that some people may not be civil? Any reason for that? I an only regret that council members spend their valuable time on this whole topic of WG membership, failing to clearly address some legitimate questions at inception. Bruce, allow me to remind us of a couple of points: 1) The distinction you made between WG and TF, while setting up the IDN WG: the WGs are not policy-making or even policy-recommendation group (e.g., they may conduct straw polls, but that is not a vote on a decision.) They are meant to clarify issues and identify those the WG members think the Council should examine further for, possibly, policy recommendations (through PDP or simple/single resolutions,) etc. As a consequence, I'd like to clarify that the choices made by a WG should not preclude by any means the possibility for the Council to further discuss or examine an issue left out of the WG report or proposals, especially at the motivated request of any council member. 2) In "designing aloud" (so to speak) the WG general rules (I must say I don't like this piecemeal approach we seem to adopt,) apart from the size problem, I don't necessarily see why the membership shouldn't be open to any interesting parties (especially in the light of the WG function recalled above.) I was told that was the case in the old DNSO days, and maybe even early GNSO ones, and I'm not under the impression that we've been dramatically more efficient since then (I consider respectability, visibility or level of profile a different point.) I don't think the observer category resolve any problem. We could rather consider the following principles: - ensure to each constituency a minimum number of seats ( e.g., 3) - open the membership to any interested party or individual (maybe subject to a statement of purpose and interests, etc.) - define a maximum size for a WG. That size needs not to be one fixed number but a range of numbers. Or if we want to make the procedure clear cut, we could also ask the constituencies to submit whether they wish to retain their minimum number of seats and fill them in at a later stage, or they wish to give them up. But those are implementations details that can be refined or crafted one way or the other. Best, Mawaki --- Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> wrote: > Hello Chuck, > > > In that regard, we > > may want to consider some means of dealing with non-constructive > > behavior both for observers and members. > > I tend to agree that a chair should attempt to deal with > inappropriate > behaviour, bearing in mind the wishes of the whole group. > Ie the decision is not made autocratically, but based on documented > guidelines for acceptable behaviour as well as seeking the views of > other members of the group. > > I think the Council then is simply able to deal with issues on an > appeal > basis - which could be handled in a similar way to that of the > Board > appeal mechanisms - e.g a subgroup of the Council can investigate > and > report to the whole Council. > > However - I would hope that these situations are rare events. The > best > approach is to stop inappropriate behaviour as soon as it happens, > rather than let it gradually grow amongst multiple participants (ie > such > behaviour tends to escalate). If a problem is let run too long, > then > you will always be blamed for singling out one person, when other > people > have also been behaving inappropriately. > > The rough rule of thumb is that was is not acceptable in a small > face-to-face environment in terms of language and courtesy is not > acceptable in a telephone conference or mailing list when people > are > further apart. > > I have noticed that when a group of people have been "fighting" > amongst > themselves on a mailing list and then meet face-to-face, the bad > feelings are often carried over. In contrast where a group has > initially met face-to-face a few times and the group members have > built > some respect for each others opinions and good intentions, then > mailing > lists discussions are generally much more civil. For example, the > Council meets face-to-face as a group regularly, as do most of the > more > active members of the registrar constituency. Subsequently mailing > list > and teleconference discussions tend to be fairly civil despite the > fact > that the participants may be strong competitors in business, or > have > strongly opposing views on a matter. > > > Regards, > Bruce Tonkin > > > > >
On 2 mar 2007, at 12.10, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
For those of us who have been around for awhile, we have definitely encountered situtations where group members were not constructive but rather were disruptive.
Over two decades in the IETF certainly taught me that. But it also taught me that often the judgement between constructive and disruptive was subjective and a matter of 'political' perspective. It also taught me that unless there are formal processes and procedures as well as levels of appeal, the solution is often far worse then the infraction. Unfortunately the time spent developing such procedures is also often far more destructive and time consuming then just learning to ignore the trolls. a.
But it also taught me that often the judgement between constructive
> an > disruptive was subjective and a matter of 'political' > perspective. >
It also taught me that unless there are formal processes and
procedures as well as levels of appeal, the solution is often far worse then the infraction.
Good points Avri, as technologist, let us be reminded how *'disruptive technologies'* have contributed to reinventing our economies, the minds set comes with it. We are also entering into a self-organizing state of affairs globally like the Ant Empire, where everything works without the Queen Ant calling the shots, but she still maintains her authority, which is none really. I hope this was not in itself disruptive on is own;) Sophia On 02/03/07, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
On 2 mar 2007, at 12.10, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
For those of us who have been around for awhile, we have definitely encountered situtations where group members were not constructive but rather were disruptive.
Over two decades in the IETF certainly taught me that. But it also taught me that often the judgement between constructive and disruptive was subjective and a matter of 'political' perspective. It also taught me that unless there are formal processes and procedures as well as levels of appeal, the solution is often far worse then the infraction.
Unfortunately the time spent developing such procedures is also often far more destructive and time consuming then just learning to ignore the trolls.
a.
Points taken Avri. I certainly wouldn't advocate spending an excessive amount of time on this. If we can't come up a relatively simple procedure including fairly simple appeal process, then we probably should just wait until a problem occurs and react. The difficulty with that is that it takes longer to deal with a problem if there is one. 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: Friday, March 02, 2007 2:44 PM To: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Regarding dealing with inappropriate behaviour
On 2 mar 2007, at 12.10, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
For those of us who have been around for awhile, we have definitely encountered situtations where group members were not constructive but rather were disruptive.
Over two decades in the IETF certainly taught me that. But it also taught me that often the judgement between constructive and disruptive was subjective and a matter of 'political' perspective. It also taught me that unless there are formal processes and procedures as well as levels of appeal, the solution is often far worse then the infraction.
Unfortunately the time spent developing such procedures is also often far more destructive and time consuming then just learning to ignore the trolls.
a.
Observers shall not be members of or entitled to vote on the working group, but otherwise shall be entitled to participate on equal footing with members of the working group. In particular observers will be able to join the mailing list, and attend teleconferences or physical meetings."
If this applies without limit to the number of observers, a w.g. meeting can easily end up with an unmanageably large number of attendees. A few dozen people with equal right to speak means that even the briefest turn around the table on a single question will take substantial time. Even in a situation where every single member of an unboundedly large w.g. has significant expertise to contribute, the Town Hall model may not provide the best basis for the focused determination of consensus on the substantive issue(s) the group has been formed to address -- at least not within the timeframes that w.g.'s are typically given to complete their assignments. A mailing list can readily absorb a large constituency and is likely to be exempt from these concerns. The same might also apply to the rather infrequent face-to-face meetings. Teleconferences are, however, quite a different matter (also having potentially tangible central budgetary consequence if equal footing also means that everyone is provided with toll-free dial-in access). I very much support the initiative to provide a more nimble channel for contributions from interested members of the community, but fear that even if the current proposal may have that effect in form, it will simply end up introducing other impediments instead. (There is another somewhat more negative line of reasoning that might also fairly be mentioned, but I won't pursue it beyond noting that this model also leaves w.g. discussion vulnerable to special interest domination.) /Cary
Cary's concern about the challenges of excessively large task forces or working groups is important and one we should focus on. One way of managing the concerns is to divide a large group into subgroups that provide input into the full group. I think we have used this fairly successfully in the RN-WG. (BTW, this technique is not limited to large groups and can be used to speed progress.) 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 Cary Karp Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 7:54 AM Cc: GNSO Council Subject: Re: [council] Regarding working group membership
Observers shall not be members of or entitled to vote on the working group, but otherwise shall be entitled to participate on equal footing with members of the working group. In particular observers will be able to join the mailing list, and attend teleconferences or physical meetings."
If this applies without limit to the number of observers, a w.g. meeting can easily end up with an unmanageably large number of attendees. A few dozen people with equal right to speak means that even the briefest turn around the table on a single question will take substantial time.
Even in a situation where every single member of an unboundedly large w.g. has significant expertise to contribute, the Town Hall model may not provide the best basis for the focused determination of consensus on the substantive issue(s) the group has been formed to address -- at least not within the timeframes that w.g.'s are typically given to complete their assignments.
A mailing list can readily absorb a large constituency and is likely to be exempt from these concerns. The same might also apply to the rather infrequent face-to-face meetings. Teleconferences are, however, quite a different matter (also having potentially tangible central budgetary consequence if equal footing also means that everyone is provided with toll-free dial-in access).
I very much support the initiative to provide a more nimble channel for contributions from interested members of the community, but fear that even if the current proposal may have that effect in form, it will simply end up introducing other impediments instead.
(There is another somewhat more negative line of reasoning that might also fairly be mentioned, but I won't pursue it beyond noting that this model also leaves w.g. discussion vulnerable to special interest domination.)
/Cary
On 1-Mar-07, at 7:53 AM, Cary Karp wrote:
If this applies without limit to the number of observers, a w.g. meeting can easily end up with an unmanageably large number of attendees.
I think we should cross that bridge if we come to it. I have seen many fine examples where large numbers of participants are regularly able to create consensus and move forward. An able chair and a reasonable framework are the core requirements. We should try to ensure that both of those conditions are present in our work, rather than optimize around inefficiencies such as poor frameworks and unable chairs at the expense of broadening participation. Ross Rader Director, Retail Services t. 416.538.5492 c. 416.828.8783 http://www.domaindirect.com "To solve the problems of today, we must focus on tomorrow." - Erik Nupponen
Couln't we just leave this to the chair of the WG who could make a decision once it comes to it? Any decision that deals with "exluding" someone from participation is not easy and should be done with as much knowledge about the situation as possible. Best, tom Am 01.03.2007 schrieb Ross Rader:
On 1-Mar-07, at 7:53 AM, Cary Karp wrote:
If this applies without limit to the number of observers, a w.g. meeting can easily end up with an unmanageably large number of attendees.
I think we should cross that bridge if we come to it. I have seen many fine examples where large numbers of participants are regularly able to create consensus and move forward. An able chair and a reasonable framework are the core requirements. We should try to ensure that both of those conditions are present in our work, rather than optimize around inefficiencies such as poor frameworks and unable chairs at the expense of broadening participation.
Ross Rader Director, Retail Services t. 416.538.5492 c. 416.828.8783 http://www.domaindirect.com
"To solve the problems of today, we must focus on tomorrow." - Erik Nupponen
Gruss, tom (__) (OO)_____ (oo) /|\ A cow is not entirely full of | |--/ | * milk some of it is hamburger! w w w w
As a WG chair, I can say with absolute certainty that I would not want to be responsible for determining if someone should be excluded. That decision will inevitably be challenged. If the decision is upheld, the time spent defending it is time I would rather spend on the WG's work under the SoW. If the decision is not upheld, it seems inevitable that allegations of bias will be levied. -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Keller Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 11:28 AM To: Ross Rader Cc: GNSO Council Subject: Re: [council] Regarding working group membership Couln't we just leave this to the chair of the WG who could make a decision once it comes to it? Any decision that deals with "exluding" someone from participation is not easy and should be done with as much knowledge about the situation as possible. Best, tom Am 01.03.2007 schrieb Ross Rader:
On 1-Mar-07, at 7:53 AM, Cary Karp wrote:
If this applies without limit to the number of observers, a w.g. meeting can easily end up with an unmanageably large number of attendees.
I think we should cross that bridge if we come to it. I have seen many
fine examples where large numbers of participants are regularly able to create consensus and move forward. An able chair and a reasonable framework are the core requirements. We should try to ensure that both
of those conditions are present in our work, rather than optimize around inefficiencies such as poor frameworks and unable chairs at the
expense of broadening participation.
Ross Rader Director, Retail Services t. 416.538.5492 c. 416.828.8783 http://www.domaindirect.com
"To solve the problems of today, we must focus on tomorrow." - Erik Nupponen
Gruss, tom (__) (OO)_____ (oo) /|\ A cow is not entirely full of | |--/ | * milk some of it is hamburger! w w w w
But as chairs, we should be able to follow membership guidelines included in the SoW without intervention by others. 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 Rosette, Kristina Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 12:23 PM To: Thomas Keller; Ross Rader Cc: GNSO Council Subject: RE: [council] Regarding working group membership
As a WG chair, I can say with absolute certainty that I would not want to be responsible for determining if someone should be excluded. That decision will inevitably be challenged. If the decision is upheld, the time spent defending it is time I would rather spend on the WG's work under the SoW. If the decision is not upheld, it seems inevitable that allegations of bias will be levied.
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Keller Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 11:28 AM To: Ross Rader Cc: GNSO Council Subject: Re: [council] Regarding working group membership
Couln't we just leave this to the chair of the WG who could make a decision once it comes to it? Any decision that deals with "exluding" someone from participation is not easy and should be done with as much knowledge about the situation as possible.
Best,
tom
Am 01.03.2007 schrieb Ross Rader:
On 1-Mar-07, at 7:53 AM, Cary Karp wrote:
If this applies without limit to the number of observers, a w.g. meeting can easily end up with an unmanageably large number of attendees.
I think we should cross that bridge if we come to it. I
have seen many
fine examples where large numbers of participants are regularly able to create consensus and move forward. An able chair and a reasonable framework are the core requirements. We should try to ensure that both
of those conditions are present in our work, rather than optimize around inefficiencies such as poor frameworks and unable chairs at the
expense of broadening participation.
Ross Rader Director, Retail Services t. 416.538.5492 c. 416.828.8783 http://www.domaindirect.com
"To solve the problems of today, we must focus on tomorrow." - Erik Nupponen
Gruss,
tom
(__) (OO)_____ (oo) /|\ A cow is not entirely full of | |--/ | * milk some of it is hamburger! w w w w
A common approach for the inclusion of experts in our WGs seems like a good idea to me. Philip
We are learning some things regarding the use of experts in the RN-WG. One approach that seems to be working well has been having a small group within the larger group consult with experts and then communicate the information obtained back to the full group. Not every issue where expertise is needed requires consulation by the full WG, but there are some issues where it will benefit the full group. Also, there may be cases where it could be beneficial to have experts as part of the group and other times where that is not necessary. Finally, it is not necessary to always have live consultations with experts; this can save considerable time. 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 philip.sheppard@aim.be Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 6:23 PM To: Bruce Tonkin Cc: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Regarding working group membership
A common approach for the inclusion of experts in our WGs seems like a good idea to me.
Philip
Dear Bruce, Thank you for your response below to the issues of membership to the IDN working group. I appreciate that you have refereed to the procedures in the bylaw for the start of a "new constituency", which the "interest group" has talked about recently and interested to pursue. I am also aware that it will take longer time (as evidenced from your email reference below) and will not address the immediate attention required to include some of the key groups that have been knocking at out doors recently, viz: *Fwd: Re: Regtime of Russia participation in the ICANN IDN GNSO policy group, dated Sat Sep 17, 2007* *Fwd: why Karmania Media was rejected from being involved in ICANN committee?, Sun 18 Feb 2007* All the interested parties above have evidenced they have satisfied the criteria, according to the emails they shared with you/us. The issues appears that after they were told they qualify, *the new and revised criteria* that the BC secretariat outlined seem to have disqualified them. Towards this end, this is a reminder for you as you have asked me already to bring the issue up at or meeting today, so we can find *an alternate method*of getting people on board *until* ICANN decides to form/approve an IDN Constituency group. Many thanks and regards, Sophia On 19/02/07, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au > wrote:
Hello All,
Following the GNSO Public Forum in Sao Paulo I have heard of instances where interested parties that wish to join the IDN working group have been unable to join a constituency in order to participate.
The ICANN bylaws do provide the ability for a group of interested stakeholders to form a new constituency:
"4. Any group of individuals or entities may petition the Board for recognition as a new or separate Constituency. Any such petition shall contain a detailed explanation of:
a. Why the addition of such a Constituency will improve the ability of the GNSO to carry out its policy-development responsibilities; and
b. Why the proposed new Constituency would adequately represent, on a global basis, the stakeholders it seeks to represent.
Any petition for the recognition of a new Constituency shall be posted for public comment.
5. The Board may create new Constituencies in response to such a petition, or on its own motion, if it determines that such action would serve the purposes of ICANN. In the event the Board is considering acting on its own motion it shall post a detailed explanation of why such action is necessary or desirable, set a reasonable time for public comment, and not make a final decision on whether to create such new Constituency until after reviewing all comments received. Whenever the Board posts a petition or recommendation for a new Constituency for public comment, it shall notify the GNSO Council and shall consider any response to that notification prior to taking action."
I am not aware of a group that has chosen to try to form a new constituency.
To get the best policy outcomes however I feel with should be as inclusive as possible, whilst ensuring that members of working groups are contributing in a positive way.
It seems to me that we need a process to handle requests for participation:
(1) Determine if the participant would be eligible to join a GNSO constituency. If they are eligible - require them first to join and then allow participation.
(2) If a participant is ineligible to join a constituency, then direct
the participant to a process to determine if they are suitable as an "expert". The applicant would need to provide a detailed statement of (i) qualifications and relevant experience; and (ii) potential conflicts of interest. The ICANN staff would need to verify the statement of qualifications and experience, and perhaps we have a process where the experts are appointed by majority vote of the GNSO Council. The experts would be non-voting members of the working group.
I would be interested in hearing from other Council members on an appropriate process that could apply to all working groups.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
Bruce, I think most of what you propose looks pretty good. But I am not so sure about requiring non-constituency members to be experts is the best way to go. I am generally not opposed to allowing observers who are not affilitated with a constituency or an expert to participate in working groups or task forces as you suggested in a later email message on this subject. 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 Bruce Tonkin Sent: Monday, February 19, 2007 10:57 PM To: Council GNSO Subject: [council] Regarding working group membership
Hello All,
Following the GNSO Public Forum in Sao Paulo I have heard of instances where interested parties that wish to join the IDN working group have been unable to join a constituency in order to participate.
The ICANN bylaws do provide the ability for a group of interested stakeholders to form a new constituency:
"4. Any group of individuals or entities may petition the Board for recognition as a new or separate Constituency. Any such petition shall contain a detailed explanation of:
a. Why the addition of such a Constituency will improve the ability of the GNSO to carry out its policy-development responsibilities; and
b. Why the proposed new Constituency would adequately represent, on a global basis, the stakeholders it seeks to represent.
Any petition for the recognition of a new Constituency shall be posted for public comment.
5. The Board may create new Constituencies in response to such a petition, or on its own motion, if it determines that such action would serve the purposes of ICANN. In the event the Board is considering acting on its own motion it shall post a detailed explanation of why such action is necessary or desirable, set a reasonable time for public comment, and not make a final decision on whether to create such new Constituency until after reviewing all comments received. Whenever the Board posts a petition or recommendation for a new Constituency for public comment, it shall notify the GNSO Council and shall consider any response to that notification prior to taking action."
I am not aware of a group that has chosen to try to form a new constituency.
To get the best policy outcomes however I feel with should be as inclusive as possible, whilst ensuring that members of working groups are contributing in a positive way.
It seems to me that we need a process to handle requests for participation:
(1) Determine if the participant would be eligible to join a GNSO constituency. If they are eligible - require them first to join and then allow participation.
(2) If a participant is ineligible to join a constituency, then direct the participant to a process to determine if they are suitable as an "expert". The applicant would need to provide a detailed statement of (i) qualifications and relevant experience; and (ii) potential conflicts of interest. The ICANN staff would need to verify the statement of qualifications and experience, and perhaps we have a process where the experts are appointed by majority vote of the GNSO Council. The experts would be non-voting members of the working group.
I would be interested in hearing from other Council members on an appropriate process that could apply to all working groups.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
participants (10)
-
Avri Doria -
Bruce Tonkin -
Cary Karp -
Gomes, Chuck -
Mawaki Chango -
philip.sheppard＠aim.be -
Rosette, Kristina -
Ross Rader -
Sophia B -
Thomas Keller