RE: [gnso-osc-ops] Action Item: GNSO Ops Work Team First Draft GNSO Proposal

["Ron Andruff" <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Eric, 

 

Your points are well taken.  Tasked with creating high level principles, we
are NOT tasked with such granularity as we have gone into here.  The reality
is, however, without drilling down to bedrock to consider and understand the
consequences of our actions, we would not be able to achieve the goal of our
task.  In the end, we are trying to scope the key operating principles of
the policy council to manage work groups and policy development, so this
exercise is not meant to overreach our responsibility as much as it is to
approach our work holistically.  If we can get the principles in place then
the appropriate bodies can work through the policies that will provide the
framework for the operations.

 

Kind regards,

 

RA

 

P.S. OWT?  I read that as "other work teams", but I'm not sure if my reading
is correct. Can you clarify?

 

Ronald N. Andruff

RNA Partners, Inc.

220 Fifth Avenue, 20th floor

New York, New York 10001

 

www.rnapartners.com 

V: +1 212 481 2820 x 11

F:  +1 212 481 2859 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Brunner-Williams [mailto:ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: 2009-04-17 11:29
To: Ron Andruff
Cc: 'GNSO Ops Work Team'; 'Robin Gross'
Subject: Re: [gnso-osc-ops] Action Item: GNSO Ops Work Team First Draft GNSO
Proposal

 

Ron,

 

Thank you for the gracious welcome. In the general case, we don't know 

what the organizing principle is that creates an ensemble of interests 

and brings them, as a collective, to the point of submitting some 

statement, perhaps a constituency petition, so in the general case, we 

don't know if there is an existing constituency sufficiently similar to, 

or willing to extend "observer" status, which will then allow some 

individual tasked by that ensemble to contribute to the OWT.

 

That's the transition-to-constituency aspect. There's the 

transition-from-constituency aspect to consider as well. Suppose a 

constituency, which has tasked an individual to contribute to the OWT, 

looses its status as a constituency. I think the BC and ISPC are 

fictionally, but others may have other mental candidates for 

liquidations-for-reasons-of-hygiene, but regardless, in general, it is 

possible for an ensemble of interests to cease holding constituency 

status, or even SO status, as the PSO did in 2002.

 

The current language seems to me, and this is the last time I'll mention 

this as I don't want to belabor a minor point, to leave the entry and 

exit standing to contribute problem of the reformed GNSO unchanged from 

the entry and exit standing to contribute of the pre-reform GNSO, that 

is, there are sharp transitions from no standing to standing and 

necessarily from standing to no standing, and for an administrative, not 

policy formation, function, the motivation for retaining a 

policy-centric barrier to standing is inobvious.

 

Obviously I've missed something as I thought the language was specific 

to the OWT, a proposed administrative function, not to the allocation of 

voting rights within existing, or proposed policy functions, such as the 

SGs or any GNSO-wide policy body, such as the Policy Council.

 

Eric

 

Ron Andruff wrote:

> 

> Eric,

> 

> Welcome to the discussion. You raise an interesting point that had not 

> been considered, however the model Julie submitted for our review 

> (prior to going out to the constituencies for comment) accommodates 

> your concern. Let me give you an example using your proposed new 

> constituency; let's call it the CTC (city TLD constituency). The CTC 

> is an "aspirant", i.e. it has NOT been recognized by ICANN at this 

> point, and the existing constituency it most closely aligns with is 

> the Registry Constituency (RyC). So the CTC would take "observer" 

> status within the RyC until such time as it becomes recognized as a 

> constituency in its own right. At that point - and only at that point, 

> as "wannabes" do not have seats at the table until they are bona fide 

> members of the community - the CTC would then be in a position to seek 

> its own representation. "Aspirants" would need to meet some threshold 

> to be recognized, e.g. they filed their application with ICANN and can 

> demonstrate some level of support for the app. in order to prevent any 

> loosely organized group from running amok.

> 

> The reallocation of representatives/votes within any SG, as new 

> constituencies form, is a GNSO-wide issue that could be approached in 

> either of two ways: The first approach would be for the broader SG 

> membership to identify a transparent process and send it up to the 

> Policy Council for a vote; or the second approach would be to 

> determine a solution at the Policy Council level, then get buy-in from 

> the larger GNSO membership.

> 

> Ultimately, in our WT's proposal that Julie circulated, the Policy 

> Council needs to undertake an evaluation of how to best deal with 

> issues such as reallocation of seats/votes. But, to be clear, the 

> model proposed does NOT inhibit or preclude anyone's participation in 

> the ICANN process.

> 

> Kind regards,

> 

> RA

> 

> Ronald N. Andruff

> 

> RNA Partners, Inc.

> 

> 220 Fifth Avenue, 20th floor

> 

> New York, New York 10001

> 

> www.rnapartners.com <http://www.rnapartners.com>

> 

> V: +1 212 481 2820 x 11

> 

> F: +1 212 481 2859

> 

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

> 

> *From:* owner-gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx 

> [mailto:owner-gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *Robin Gross

> *Sent:* 2009-04-16 19:15

> *To:* Ray Fassett

> *Cc:* 'Eric Brunner-Williams'; jahedlund@xxxxxxxxxxx; 'GNSO Ops Work Team'

> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-osc-ops] Action Item: GNSO Ops Work Team First 

> Draft GNSO Proposal

> 

> On Apr 16, 2009, at 2:37 PM, Ray Fassett wrote:

> 

> 

> 

> Eric, first of all, welcome to the team and thank you for your decision to

> 

> participate. But please allow me to clarify, because I know you are just

> 

> getting started with us, that Julie's role with our Work Team is more the

> 

> messenger than the shaper, so to speak. I say this because I want to

> 

> encourage discussion amongst the work team members. Whatever your 

> thoughts,

> 

> just go ahead and address the group. If something is coming to the group

> 

> from Julie, it is because I asked her to for our own efficiency reasons.

> 

> But please view Julie as only the messenger and address and your

> 

> comments/views to the work team.

> 

> So, to your comment, do I have it right that the point you are raising is

> 

> that individuals not yet part of an ICANN recognized constituency will not

> 

> be able to participate in the proposed sub group concept?

> 

> Individuals are invited to participate in both (FWIU) the business 

> constituency and also the non-commercial constituency, so there is 

> opportunity for individuals to participate in any GNSO processes. 

> However, I'm not suggesting that we not look at opening up individual 

> participation if it makes sense.

> 

> Robin

> 

> 

> 

> If so, I think it

> 

> is a good catch and we should discuss the pros and cons of that. I don't

> 

> think any of us looked at from this direction or otherwise gave it thought

> 

> this way. So, good comment for us to think about and if anyone has any

> 

> thoughts to share to what Eric is raising, please do so.

> 

> Ray

> 

> -----Original Message-----

> 

> From: owner-gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx 

> [mailto:owner-gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx] On

> 

> Behalf Of Eric Brunner-Williams

> 

> Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2009 5:08 PM

> 

> To: jahedlund@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:jahedlund@xxxxxxxxxxx>

> 

> Cc: GNSO Ops Work Team

> 

> Subject: Re: [gnso-osc-ops] Action Item: GNSO Ops Work Team First 

> Draft GNSO

> 

> Proposal

> 

> Julie,

> 

> Since I'm tasked with representing the interests of the City TLD group,

> 

> to use Robert's term, which is a potential new constituency, but not

> 

> presently a constituency, the entity reference isn't what concerns me.

> 

> Rather, it is the possibly counter-productive over-specification of the

> 

> composition of the entity or sub-group, I'll call it a set, to "...

> 

> officers (representatives) of the different constituencies

> 

> designated/elected specifically for this purpose." This is followed by a

> 

> reference to what is presumably a proper subset of this set, which of

> 

> necessity shares this possibly counter-productive over-specification.

> 

> Which is a long-worded observation that whomever is tasked to contribute

> 

> to the OSC on behalf of things that aren't yet constituencies will not

> 

> be able to contribute to OWT and its sub-sets, whether sub-entities or

> 

> sub-groups.

> 

> Now, as the purpose of the proposed OWT is administrative, not policy

> 

> development, in nature, and while any restriction on the composition of

> 

> an OWT is within the scope of the proponents of the formation of an OWT,

> 

> it seems reasonable to ask what particular purpose this particular

> 

> restriction on composition serves.

> 

> Obviously I can't think of a purpose, but other than the Sundy work

> 

> period in Mexico City, I haven't until this week been tracking OSC Ops

> 

> list or call discussion, and if the subject was discussed yesterday at

> 

> the 1500GMT call time, I'm sorry my CORE staff call time conflicted, and

> 

> I've not yet listened to the audio, so I could be completely mistaken.

> 

> Eric

> 

> Julie Hedlund wrote:

> 

>> Dear Work Team members,

>> 

>> In response to the following action item:

>> 

>> *1. High-level operating principles: Julie Hedlund will prepare an

>> 

>> executive summary of Ron Andruff's recommendations, circulate it to

>> 

>> Ron for comment, and then to the Work Team for consideration.*

>> 

>> I have prepared the attached draft document, which Ron has reviewed,

>> 

>> for your consideration. It also is posted on the wiki main page:

>> 

>> https://st.icann.org/icann-osc/index.cgi?gnso_operations_team.

>> 

>> Comments and suggestions for improvement are welcome. Also, please

>> 

>> let me know if you have any questions.

>> 

>> Thank you.

>> 

>> Best regards,

>> 

>> Julie

>> 

>> Julie Hedlund

>> 

>> Policy Consultant

>> 

> IP JUSTICE

> 

> Robin Gross, Executive Director

> 

> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA

> 

> p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451

> 

> w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 

> <mailto:robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

> 

> 

>