[gnso-osc-ops] Principles Document Feedback- please review

["Ray Fassett" <ray@xxxxxxxxx>]

Team, below is the word for word feedback I have received to the high level
principles document to date for your review. Not all have yet responded. We
know there are some crushing issues going within ICANN consuming people's
time right now, so I am being a little patient.  I will follow up with each
for another nudge that have not yet responded.  Nonetheless, I believe the
points below are substantive for us to review, consider, and discuss.

 

*       Council members today spend time usefully on policy matters and
spend time unnecessarily on administrative matters 

 

*       ICANN has grown as an organization to be able to provide the
resources to Council that are administrative related.  

 

*       The proposed structure could increase the bureaucratic nature of the
GNSO by overspecializing functions. It is not clear that dividing what we
know of the Council today into two distinct areas of responsibilities will
add enough value to justify the added bureaucracy.

 

*       The WT says, "Representing each GNSO constituency Policy Councilors
would focus solely on policy development and policy coordination activities
. . ." The first part of this statement goes counter to the Board
recommendations and the second part is in sync with the Board
recommendations.  In my opinion, the Boards recommendations are clear that
the GNSO Council is NOT supposed to focus on policy development but rather
on policy coordination (management).  So it appears that the WT is working
under a false assumption; if I am misunderstanding, please clarify.

 

*       The WT identifies the following as a 'key principle': "there should
not be overlap between the policy development and management functions of
the SO and the administration and management of the SO."  This principle
combines policy development with SO management.  I think there are several
problems with this: 1) the Board recommended that the Council be a policy
management body not a policy development body; 2) SO management is very
different than policy management, the latter being more of an administrative
function; 3) it is often not easy to clearly differentiate between
management and 

administration because there is unavoidable overlap.

 

*       The new structure could require more volunteers to staff than the
current structure, especially when factors such as SG representativeness and
geographic diversity are considered.

 

*       It may be difficult to clearly distinguish administrative from
policy functions.  Historically in the GNSO there has been blurring between
what is policy and what is not.  But if the proposal goes forward, it should
include specific guidelines that could be applied as objectively as
possible.

 

*       There may not be sufficient administrative responsibilities over the
long haul to warrant a separate administrative body.  At the moment the
Council seems to have quite a few tasks that could be classified as
administrative but it is not obvious that they will continue at the same
level as ICANN and the GNSO stabilize further.  The GNSO restructure
exercise involves a high level of administrative activity on the part of the
Council but, once that is completed, the demand should decrease
significantly.  Also, it may be more efficient for ICANN Staff to handle
most of the administrative tasks except when GNSO decisions are needed.

 

*       The goal of ensuring "that appropriate individuals are selected on
the basis of their particular skill sets to serve on independent bodies in
representation of their respective constituency" has some value, but it
could actually complicate the selection of representatives and make it more
difficult for SGs to find qualified volunteers.  It has not been uncommon
for current constituencies to have difficulty find qualified and available
volunteers to serve on the Council.  It could actually become harder if they
have to find some who have administrative expertise and others who have
policy expertise while at the same time meeting geographic diversity
requirements and balancing various stakeholder group interest areas.

 

*       It appears that staffing of the reorganized structure would require
changes to the Board approved seats on the Council.  The Board approved 3
seats each for each of the contracted party SGs and 6 seats each for each of
the non-contracted party SGs plus one voting NomCom appointee for each house
and a non-voting NomCom appointee for the Council as a whole.  It does not
seem like the WT organizational structure could be accommodated without
making changes to the Board's recommendations; if that is true, then that
could be a show stopper because going back to revisit the number of seats
per SG is likely not an option.

 

Ray Fassett

Chair

GOT