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

[<KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>]

All
 
I'm not sure if I used the correct E-Mail address list yesterday. Here
again my comment.
 
Regards
 
Wolf-Ulrich

________________________________

Von: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich 
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 3. Juni 2009 13:36
An: 'owner-gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx'
Betreff: WG: [gnso-osc-ops] Principles Document Feedback- please review


Dear all.
 
I've added my comments in pink.
 
Best regards
WUK
(Wolf-Ulrich Knoben)

________________________________

Von: owner-gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx]
Im Auftrag von Tony Holmes
Gesendet: Freitag, 29. Mai 2009 12:03
An: 'GNSO Ops Work Team'
Betreff: RE: [gnso-osc-ops] Principles Document Feedback- please review



All

 

I have added my comments below.

 

Regards

 

Tony

 

________________________________

From: owner-gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Ron Andruff
Sent: 27 May 2009 22:13
To: 'GNSO Ops Work Team'
Subject: RE: [gnso-osc-ops] Principles Document Feedback- please review

 

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 

Tony- I also agree but consider the new working arrangements would
reduce this load on Council

 WUK - I understood this statement in this way: the council should not
deal with any administrative matters. In this context the future
estimated administrative workload is to be quantified in order to
justify the split-up proposal.

 

*       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. 

Tony-I think the point being made here (which I support) is the admin
load on the existing council has already been substantially offloaded
due to staff support. This begs the question, although not specifically
stated in this bullet, of whether that reduced load warrants the
creation of a separate peer function just looking at Administration. It
can only be answered once the difference between 'policy council admin'
and all 'other admin' is made abundantly clear. 

WUK - see my 1st comment 

 

*       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. 

Tony- This point does not seem to be clear in our existing document as a
number of people have assumed we are splitting council. It needs to be
made categorically clear that the Admin function is being put forward as
an additional function. We could argue the words are already there, but
the message isn't getting through! 

WUK - The misunderstanding comes from the fact that we put the
administrative function to the same hierarchical level as the policy
function. We should be open for an alternative solution.

 

*       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. 

Tony- I agree with Ron's proposal, but we need to give more explicit
examples of the difference between policy coordination and policy
administration. Currently this is just adding to the confusion. 

WUK - I agree 

 

*       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.

Tony - I don't agree that it's the Ex Comms job to sort out which body
does which. If this proposal is being put out for comment by this group
WE have to make that distinction within the document in order to fully
explain the proposal. 

WUK - It is essential for us (maybe in context with the rules of
procedure) to come up with clear definitions: policy management, policy
development, policy development management..... Basis for this should be
the BGC report as well as the related board rec's. We have also define
more clearly the "supervising" function and the related "power" of the
ExComm.

 

 

*       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 

Tony - I also agree, so let's make clear guidelines proposals within the
draft

 

 

*       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).


.

Tony- I've already made .my views known on this and support the bulleted
comment, but that is not an issue that requires further discussion prior
to getting back further responses  

WUK - I also do not agree that we're unable to quantify estimated future
administrative workload. That is obligatory for each company in advance
to spending staff, money and time for coordination.

 

*       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... 

Tony- if the proposal is 'no geo diversity for the admin teams', this
need's to be stated in the draft. 

WUK - Could we solve that by giving the "Admin. group" a level status
different from council; e.g. as "permanent committee" similar to the
board committees?

 

 

*       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. 

 

Tony - again this indicates that a little tinkering with the draft is
still required in order to add clarity. Without this the response back
to the kite is going to raise more issues/comments that we may not
consider relevant or helpful 

WUK - To overcome any doubts it should be clearly stated that the
proposal is fully in line with the 2-houses approach and the related
voting scheme for the council which was resolved by the board.

 

Ray Fassett

Chair

GOT