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

["Ron Andruff" <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear all,

 

Pursuant to our agreement to add our thoughts/comments to those noted below,
please find mine in red.  I would strongly recommend that work team members
re-read what we submitted to this group PRIOR to adding their comments to
support correct understanding of the comments that have been returned to us.

 

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 

 

  _____  

From: owner-gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Ray Fassett
Sent: 2009-05-27 08:49
To: 'GNSO Ops Work Team'
Subject: [gnso-osc-ops] Principles Document Feedback- please review

 

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 Agreed

 

*       ICANN has grown as an organization to be able to provide the
resources to Council that are administrative related.  The separation of
policy and administration is not meant to address the policy council's
administration issues, which, as noted, are being adequately addressed.

 

*       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.  We are NOT dividing the
council.  We are recommending adding an administrative body to stand along
side council to do specific, non-council work.

 

*       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.  This
statement is correct in that we need to remove the three words noted in blue
above.  That would resolve this issue.

 

*       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.  While the word "management"
has been used twice, it should be clear that we are speaking of "policy
development management" and "administration management" - Julie can clarify
this language. 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; We know; language clarification, same as noted in bullet
above. 2) SO management is very different than policy management, the latter
being more of an administrative function; We know; same as noted in bullet
above. 3) it is often not easy to clearly differentiate between management
and 

administration because there is unavoidable overlap. Agreed; however, as
noted in the "kite" it will be the Ex Comm's job to sort out which body does
what.

 

*       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. Agreed

 

*       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. Agreed

 

*       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. No
one knows the answer to the question of how much work, but we do know that
the organization is growing and will continue to grow, i.e., more work to be
done rather than less.  In addition, ICANN is a bottom-up consensus
organization and therefore the tasks that were noted in the "kite" are those
that the community will undertake.  Staff's job is to support that work, not
do it.  Finally, if, in fact, the reality turns out that the Administrative
side of the GNSO has nothing to do, it can be disbanded or shrunk to fit the
need.  Not having such a body today would means that the GNSO would remain
what it is today, a truncated supporting organization (because the
administration work examples that are noted in the "kite" either get short
shrift or are simply not done).

 

*       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. While I
can appreciate the writer has little background to the logic behind the
"kite", we are NOT looking for resumes and CVs.  The intention is much more
simple than that, i.e., self-selection.  An individual may through their hat
into either ring, should they feel qualified to do so.  We are also NOT
expecting geographic diversity on the administration team, as this function
is one of organization rather than policy.  Furthermore, any SG that could
not field two reps to the Council and one or two reps to the administration
team desperately needs the outreach function that the admin group would be
responsible for.

 

*       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. No.  Incorrect. This is NOT a council issue.
This is an SO issue and functions as noted in my comments on the bullet
above. 

 

Ray Fassett

Chair

GOT