RE: [council] RE: GNSO Review
Hello Grant,
I think it is crucial that in gathering data, asking questions, analysing and making recommendations, that this is done in a clear and agreed understanding of the purpose of the GNSO given ICANN's mission, core values (eg bottom up, consensus based policy development) and commitments (eg MOU).
I agree that it will be important to have a clear statement of the GNSO's purpose, and perhaps some examples of what has been done within that purpose to set the background when asking review questions. While I suspect that members of individual constituencies may understand the purpose of their own constituency - they may not understand the wider context within which the constituency operates. When you talk to people outside of the GNSO constituencies the level of understanding is probably even lower. I would suggest that the relevant section of the current bylaws be summarised, and perhaps it would also be useful to retrieve material from the formation of ICANN where the constituency structure was first proposed. The most recent ICANN reform process that occurred a few years ago - was more focused on the structure of the Board, and structure of the Councils, but did not delve down into the structure/efficiencies of the constituencies themselves - so much of the thoughts that led to the formation of the original constituencies (and there have been no changes in the number of constituencies) probably dates back to early documents in the formation of ICANN. Some members of Council may be able to assist by providing references to the Council list of appropriate documents. Regards, Bruce Tonkin
The constituency model grew out of the community's work within the IFWP and many informal and probably a mix of recorded/summarized and unrecorded discussions. The DNSO bylaws were drafted as a consensus approach, with input from many; the constituency model grew up as a means to create balance across diverse and often competing interests. Many other models were considered, and for many reasons, we "evolved" to this model. And, then we evolved this model through the ERC process, with several critical changes. CIX and ITAA in the US, and other organizations in other countries provided in kind staff support to help to do actual drafting on the bylaws. There were many many contributions and many edits. Some will be recorded; many will not. It was not always possible to provide full recording of the working sessions. The business entities, and associations in the US and Europe and ISP associations in Europe and Latin America and Japan were heavily engaged in this process; as were others... some of whom are in different roles today within ICANN. It is important to know where we have been in order to know where we can go..... One has to remember that sudden, abrupt and unannounced change is usually alienating, of course. Which is why the changes to date have tried to take an evolutionary approach, rather than a revolutionary approach. -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2005 7:06 PM To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] RE: GNSO Review Hello Grant,
I think it is crucial that in gathering data, asking questions, analysing and making recommendations, that this is done in a clear and agreed understanding of the purpose of the GNSO given ICANN's mission, core values (eg bottom up, consensus based policy development) and commitments (eg MOU).
I agree that it will be important to have a clear statement of the GNSO's purpose, and perhaps some examples of what has been done within that purpose to set the background when asking review questions. While I suspect that members of individual constituencies may understand the purpose of their own constituency - they may not understand the wider context within which the constituency operates. When you talk to people outside of the GNSO constituencies the level of understanding is probably even lower. I would suggest that the relevant section of the current bylaws be summarised, and perhaps it would also be useful to retrieve material from the formation of ICANN where the constituency structure was first proposed. The most recent ICANN reform process that occurred a few years ago - was more focused on the structure of the Board, and structure of the Councils, but did not delve down into the structure/efficiencies of the constituencies themselves - so much of the thoughts that led to the formation of the original constituencies (and there have been no changes in the number of constituencies) probably dates back to early documents in the formation of ICANN. Some members of Council may be able to assist by providing references to the Council list of appropriate documents. Regards, Bruce Tonkin
Before we all get carried away on great and good ideas on this review, can we agree on the scope of the review? We have already done an ICANN evolution and reform process (ERP) - no one I HOPE - wants to repeat that in the context of the GNSO ? We have already done a GNSO Council review and agreed actions as a result - no one I HOPE - wants to duplicate that ? Therefore the scope question is surely: Given the purpose of the GNSO, Given the current structures / networks / methodology, How effective are these structures / networks and methods? Anything more - such as comparison to other models - I suggest is out of scope. That may be relevant if we conclude structures / networks / methods are broken or useless, but that should inform a second tier of work ONCE the ineffective bits are identified. If there is a proposal to repeat the evolution and reform process work for the GNSO, I plan a long holiday. Philip
participants (3)
-
Bruce Tonkin -
Marilyn Cade -
Philip Sheppard