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

["Ray Fassett" <ray@xxxxxxxxx>]

Please note that the call this week is for Thursday, not Wednesday.  Sorry
for the confusion.

 

Ray

 

  _____  

From: owner-gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Ray Fassett
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 10:15 AM
To: gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-osc-ops] Action Item: GNSO Ops Work Team First Draft GNSO
Proposal

 

I apologize for being out of the box the past few days due to a personal
illness, but back in the saddle now.  Quite honestly, both Ron & Wolf are
providing equally sound perspectives, in my opinion.  One thing I would like
to change is the terminology of calling this the ?Julie draft?.  Let?s call
it Proposed for Separation of Duties v1.0.  Let?s be clear that our proposed
method to achieve this is by creating 2 new sub-committees, one for
administrative duties and another for duties that pertain to recruitment,
outreach, and participation.  There would be a hierarchy where each of these
2 new sub-committees would fall under, or report to, the Policy Council.  Is
this assumption correct?  (An answer to his may help with Wolf?s
understanding and mine too).  Part of the goal to be achieved by way of this
committee approach is 1) match skill sets to needed duties and 2) divide the
work load to increase efficiencies, including the prospect of addressing
needs proposed by the BGC that in today?s GNSO Council composition I would
have difficulty finding where this could fit and how it could be
implemented.

 

I agree with Wolf?s thought to inform the OSC of the kite we want to fly.
Let?s discuss on the call tomorrow the best protocol to do this.  I also
hear Eric?s comments.  If I am not mistaken, part of what the BGC
re-affirmed was the commitment to the ICANN constituency structure.  So we
have to work within this which I interpret to mean constituencies recognized
as formed by ICANN.  But I ask we not make this our debate right now.

 

I will follow up later today with a brief agenda for our call tomorrow.  I
think it important that we spend some time on the SOI/DOI documents.  I
would like to budget 1.5 hours for tomorrow?s call, a half hour longer than
usual, for those that can attend.

 

Ray

 

  _____  

From: owner-gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, April 17, 2009 5:25 PM
To: randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx; robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: AW: [gnso-osc-ops] Action Item: GNSO Ops Work Team First Draft GNSO
Proposal

 

Ron,

 

I would be happy to see the kite flying. And that is the reason why I'm
looking for a solid ground from where it could get started.

A broader discussion is very much needed. And we have to channel it through
the procedure fixed in the charter, i.e. report to the OSC.

 

With regards to the Sub-Group or Working Team I may have been fully mislead
by the former wording "entity" believing the proposal was to split the
council on even level for policy and administrative matters. If that comes
down to a more council assisting function for the administrative part it
would better cope with my understanding.

Wishing you a nice weekend

Wolf-Ulrich

 

 

  _____  

Von: Ron Andruff [mailto:randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Gesendet: Freitag, 17. April 2009 19:15
An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx; robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Betreff: RE: [gnso-osc-ops] Action Item: GNSO Ops Work Team First Draft GNSO
Proposal

Wolf-Ulrich,

 

In reading your comments two points come up for me:

 

1.      We need to establish, as we all agree, a recommendation for some
high level principles.  We also need to drop the lines and get our ship out
to sea at some point? What is proposed is to send out what I?ll refer to as
the ?Julie draft? to our constituencies for their review and comment.  That,
will give our WT the necessary feedback to refine, or rethink, our way
forward vis-à-vis gaining consensus on all fronts.  At this stage, we are
simply testing our ?kite? to see if it flies.  If it doesn?t, we will go
back to the drawing board with knowledge about what doesn?t work?  But we
need to get a peg in the ground, i.e. get started now.

 

2.      To get some sense of an analysis you might simple frame the
questions differently.   

 

Questions come up like:

-           what is the estimated actual proportion of policy and
administrative workload?  

-           Does this proportion justify a separate body?

-           Shall the administrative work done by the council at present
remain as a task for a body on council level or couldn't that been handled
by a Working Team?

 

Does the Policy Council focus solely on policy development? (No) 

Would the Policy Council better serve the community if it did? (Yes) 

Does the Policy Council have more time to devote to administrative issues?
(No)

Are all policy-oriented individuals equally skilled at administration? (No)

Does the GNSO operate as a fully functioning SO? (No.  Ask any ICANN
community member if they understand that there is a difference between the
GNSO and the Policy Council and very few will respond in the affirmative.
This clearly demonstrates that other than policy development, the rest of
the body of activities of the GNSO get short shrift.)

Does the GNSO have dedicated teams to improve the quality and output of the
face-to-face meetings for all constituencies or stakeholder groups? (No)

Does the GNSO have a dedicated team to do outreach to enroll an ever-larger
community to participate in ICANN?  (No)

Does the GNSO have a dedicated team to research horizon DNS issues to
provide the community with the necessary facts to reach consensus on action
items? (No)

Would a separate sub-group focused solely on working on all non-policy
development matters serve the larger body of the GNSO? (Yes)

What is the difference between a sub-group and work team?  Is this not just
semantics?  (Yes)

 

With respect, Wolf, the analysis is a pretty simple one.  And it points to
broadening the number of people currently doing all of the work, so that
specialized individuals can do specialized work, as well as bringing in new
faces, new blood to get involved.  The result, we hope, will be a more
efficient and effective Policy Council developing policy in concert with
Working Groups, as part of a successful supporting organization that equally
effectively manages the administration/outreach/work group staffing, etc.;
all of which will surely increase as ICANN continues to mature in its next
decade of life and beyond.

 

Having said all that, please do go ahead with your offer to do analysis as I
believe that it could indeed serve the WT once we get some feedback from our
constituencies vis-à-vis the Julie draft.  

 

For this reason, I support sending the Julie draft to the community as soon
as possible so that we can have some substantive discussion on it on our
call this Thursday.

 

Kind regards,

 

RA

 

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: KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: 2009-04-17 12:16
To: ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx; robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: AW: [gnso-osc-ops] Action Item: GNSO Ops Work Team First Draft GNSO
Proposal

 

All,

 

to my understanding we're still discussing "high level operational
principles" in order to establish the role of the Council as a "strategic
manager of the policy process".

 

Ron's initiative for the dialogue and the analysis of the councils present
(and future) workload with respect to policy and administrative issues are
highly welcome as I've expressed during our last call. However I'm of the
opinion that the request for new structures e.g. according to the paper
should be set after a more detailed analysis.

 

Questions come up like:

-           what is the estimated actual proportion of policy and
administrative workload?

-           Does this proportion justify a separate body?

-           Shall the administrative work done by the council at present
remain as a task for a body on council level or couldn't that been handled
by a Working Team?

 

Searching for consensus results for these organizational issues would
require a lengthy discussion period (report to the OSC, discussions within
the constituencies, bylaw amendments etc.). At the end of it could be a
decision about structures. We may have a "Policy Council" but still lacking
on "strategic managing characteristica".

 

So I'm in favour of doing this workload analysis first since everybody has
her/his subjective view on this. 

 

 

Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich Knoben 

 

 

Deutsche Telekom AG  

Wolf-Ulrich Knoben 

Heinrich-Hertz-Str. 3-7

D - 64295 Darmstadt

+49 2244 873999 (Tel.)

+49 2151 5300 5206 (PC-Fax)

+49 151 1452 5867 (Mobil) 

http://www.telekom.com 

 

Deutsche Telekom AG 

Aufsichtsrat: Prof. Dr. Ulrich Lehner (Vorsitzender)

Vorstand: René Obermann (Vorsitzender)

Timotheus Höttges (stellvertretender Vorsitzender)

Hamid Akhavan, Manfred Balz, Reinhard Clemens, Niek Jan van Damme, Guido
Kerkhoff, Thomas Sattelberger 

Handelsregister: Amtsgericht Bonn HRB 6794 

Sitz der Gesellschaft: Bonn 

WEEE-Reg.-Nr.: DE50478376

 

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----

Von: owner-gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx] Im
Auftrag von Eric Brunner-Williams

Gesendet: Freitag, 17. April 2009 18:05

An: Ron Andruff

Cc: 'GNSO Ops Work Team'; 'Robin Gross'

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

 

 

Ron,

 

I intended "OWT" to refer to the "GNSO Operations Work Team", perhaps 

GOWT would be preferable, and pronouncable, though unbearably close to 

equally pronouncable "GWOT".

 

Eric

 

Ron Andruff wrote:

> 

> 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>

> 

> >

> 

> >

> 

> >

>