RE: QuQRE: [gnso-osc-ops] GNSO "kite" and Sydney

["Ron Andruff" <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Ray, 

 

Nomenclature will be the death of us all!  ;o)  What I was trying to get
across was the following concept: work on policy development around and in
support of the various Working Groups (just as you seek Chuck?s council
now).  Their work is to enhance collaboration and development on the whole.
To quote from the kite, the role of the policy councilors (as a high level
principle, but here noted in some detail for our better understanding) will
be:

 

Policy Councilors 

 

Representing each GNSO constituency Policy Councilors would focus solely on
policy development and policy coordination activities, including undertaking
the needed outreach within their own constituencies and actively supporting
the coordination of the Policy Council with other policy bodies within
ICANN.  As ?managers?, Councilors would concern themselves with matters
pertaining to what it takes to fully support Working Groups focused on DNS
policy.  Focused on process, Councilors would address matters such as
succinctly framing the issues; scoping the work for the Working Groups; and
identifying the need for economic or other analyses, or not. Increasingly,
it is recognized that there is a need for cross-collaboration and
communication with other SOs and Advisory Committees, including the GAC and
ALAC, regarding policy issues that emerge within the gTLD policy arena.  The
Policy Council should assume a greater oversight and responsibility for
ensuring that there is cross SO coordination (not merely Policy
Council/Chair exchange) on issues that are crosscutting in the policy arena.
For example, this may include support of jointly planned Policy Forums at
the early stages of issues exploration and study.  In order to effectively
manage policy development work, councilors would need to be close working
?partners? with a sufficient number of SO-dedicated ICANN policy staff to
ensure that PDP Working Groups are well-staffed, well-informed, and thorough
in their documentation.  This would ensure an efficient, transparent policy
development process.  

 

In addition, the Policy Council would consider and determine a means of
studying and examining issues that need addressing, e.g., ___________.  This
role would ensure that there is a suitable and well-supported issues
analysis process; preparation of supporting and informational materials that
are then made available widely for public comment; broaden education of the
ICANN community about consequential issues as relevant; and would strengthen
and deepen the understanding of issues, enabling solutions to be identified
more rapidly, and explored thoroughly.  Identifying solutions that are drawn
from a basis of fact supports ICANN?s core mission and is the bridge to
ICANN?s core principle of building consensus.

 

Examples of suggested Policy Councilor functions, restated, include:

*       Policy development and coordination including:

*       Coordinating the activities of working groups focused on gTLD
policy, including

*       Framing issues;
*       Scoping work; and
*       Considering the need for economic or other analysis.

*       Developing a synergistic relationship with SO-dedicated ICANN policy
staff to ensure that PDP Working Groups are well-staffed, well-informed and
thorough in their documentation;
*       Outreach within constituencies to gather those that are most
well-versed in certain topics to participate on specific Working Groups; 

*       Ensuring cross-SO coordination on cross-cutting policy issues,
including:

*       Initiating cross SO,  jointly-planned Policy Forums on emerging
issues; and
*       Supporting the collaboration of the Policy Council with other policy
bodies within ICANN;

*       Developing and maintaining an issues analysis process, including

*       Examining horizon issues that will need addressing; developing
thorough informational materials to deepen understanding by the greater
ICANN community. 

 

But, clearly, the determination of which of these activities, or any others,
will be undertaken by the newly-sat Policy Council as it is their decision
to take.  The last sentence of your note below is absolutely right.  What
was said on our first 2 or 3 calls was that this level of detail is for
explanatory purposes only  -- for the work team?s understanding ? so that
the concepts have a thought-through basis.  The kite is five pages long, but
somewhat detailed solely for the purpose of getting a ?yes, this makes
sense? or ?no, are you guys crazy?!? from the community.  We are not putting
this document forward as a public comment piece determined to become policy.
We are asking the reps to ask their members on list to give them a yes/no
consensus to steer the work team in the right direction.  Open, let say,
until Sydney is over, as Tony has suggested.  This is not a voting scenario
in any way, shape or form.  And the Chair?s note to the community needs to
state that clearly.

 

In short, the five-page kite, was always intended to be reduced to a simply
stated, high level principle once the community weighed in and gave us
direction.   

 

With regard to your question below, the chart denotes a five-member
Executive Committee, with the two chairs from policy and admin, plus two
other elected/selected individuals ? one from the Policy Council and one
from the administration group ? along with the GNSO Chair.  This five person
body will steer the greater GNSO in a manner that avoids capture and is
completely transparent.  The broader the group through which management is
distributed, the more effective the organization.

 

Until the call,

 

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: 2009-06-10 10:01
To: 'GNSO Ops Work Team'
Subject: RE: QuQRE: [gnso-osc-ops] GNSO "kite" and Sydney

 

Thanks Ron.

 

Ok, not trying to be difficult here but councilors are not to ?work on
policy development?.  They are to administratively manage policy development
which is different than administratively managing the non-policy affairs of
the SO i.e. the separation of ?administrative? duties we are calling
attention to as a high level principle.  Then it becomes: what are these
administrative duties that require separation (policy management vs.
non-policy management)?   Where I am hearing from other members of our Work
Team that we have not delineated this well enough to be identifying the
number of additional people ? call them volunteers ? this will require under
the new format.  We should think about the term ?Administrative Volunteer?
because council members are to be administrators too, just different
administrative tasks (policy management vs. non-policy management) ? the
separation of administrative duties we are calling attention to.  We all
agree that the more council members can focus their time and effort on being
the manager of policy development vs. managing non-policy administrative
tasks of the SO, the better it can serve its intended role.  In terms of our
work, as a high level principle that you have brought attention to for us, I
find this to be both useful and consistent.

 

So here?s another question for you:  Can the ?Administrative Volunteer? be a
member of the Ex Comm?

 

I like the idea of identifying the high level principle of ?separation of
duties?, I have from the beginning.  I like offering the idea of calling for
volunteers from the stakeholder groups as our proposed method to assist with
the non-policy related administrative duties of the SO.  I like the idea of
identifying what these non-policy administrative duties are in support of
our thought that this will enable the council to be more efficient and
focused as the manager of policy development as recommended by the BGC.  I
think we have consensus within our Work Team for each of these points.  But
I am not sure we need to go any farther than this because when we do, we
have found ourselves bogged down on ?structure? instead of process, beyond
nomenclature.

 

Ray

 

  _____  

From: Ron Andruff [mailto:randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 9:07 AM
To: 'Ray Fassett'; 'GNSO Ops Work Team'
Subject: RE: QuQRE: [gnso-osc-ops] GNSO "kite" and Sydney

 

Ray,

 

The answer is ?no?.  They are two different bodies, each with their own
expertise.  Administrators are not councilors; councilors, as detailed in
the text of the kite, work on policy development around and in support of
the various Working Groups (just as you seek Chuck?s council now).   

 

That said, you do bring something to light which we can correct and that is
the nomenclature: ?Administration? Elected Rep could be better named
?Administration Volunteer?.  That adds clarity and removes issues such as
?representativeness? that has arisen as a thorny issue.

 

We can further refine this on the call shortly.

 

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: Ray Fassett [mailto:ray@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: 2009-06-09 15:38
To: 'Ron Andruff'; 'GNSO Ops Work Team'
Subject: RE: QuQRE: [gnso-osc-ops] GNSO "kite" and Sydney

 

Ron, per the org chart, I see a ?yes? or ?no? question of:  Are the
additional members for organizational administrative duties intended to be
recognized as members of the GNSO Council?  If the answer to this question
is ?yes?, is it not therefore true that members of the GNSO Council must
consist of two groups?  

 

If the answer is ?no?, that the additional members are not to be recognized
as members of the GNSO Council, does the org chart accurately depict this?

 

My intention is not to dramatically alter the kite proposal?s initial
position.  It is to capture what the org chart is illustrating this position
to be, our purpose for including it.  Perhaps your response to my question
above will assist in my understanding.

 

 



 

  _____  

From: Ron Andruff [mailto:randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2009 12:53 PM
To: 'Ray Fassett'; 'GNSO Ops Work Team'
Subject: QuQRE: [gnso-osc-ops] GNSO "kite" and Sydney

 

Ray,

 

Please find my comments in red below.  

 

Regarding the comments you received on the RoP from Julie and Rob it would
be helpful if the rest of the work team had access to that information as
well.  I am still unsure as to who is doing what; moveover, how work done by
other work teams will impact the work we are undertaking.

 

Regarding our face-to-face meeting in Sydney, as noted in my previous post
(below), can you advise whether our meeting is indeed being extended (or
not) so that we can all make our other meeting plans accordingly.

 

Thank you.

 

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: Ray Fassett [mailto:ray@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: 2009-06-09 00:28
To: 'Ron Andruff'; 'GNSO Ops Work Team'
Subject: RE: [gnso-osc-ops] GNSO "kite" and Sydney

 

Ron, my opinion is that we have not provided explicit enough examples to
delineate policy administrative duties from organizational administrative
duties.  This is key because a major crux to the document is a new staffing
proposal for each of these administrative needs.

 

At the end of the day, GNSO Council members are to be administrators.  They
are to administratively manage the policy development process.  The point
you have introduced is that in order for future Council to members to best
do this administrative policy management function with efficiency, all of
the other administrative duties of the GNSO need to be supplemented with new
people ? at the Council level.  This is where the new proposed
organizational chart comes in.

 

I have reviewed both Tony?s and Wolf?s comments.  There is an overriding
question going on ? call it a difference of opinion ? within our work team
as to whether there are enough organizational administrative duties to
warrant a separate body for this.  At the same time, I hear your issue that
if this ends being the case in practice, then the separate admin body can be
disbanded.

 

There is also the question of geographic diversity requirements.  Without
over complicating the document to fly the kite, we are being silent to this
question ? but we are not all on board that we should be. Diversity is
critical in policy development; but with regard to administrative tasks the
important issue is getting the task done, not where the individuals on the
team come from.  It may be asking too much to confirm diversity on the admin
team.

 

I have had discussions with Chuck Gomes, Chair of the OSC pertaining to this
document and its distribution.  He has emphasized to me two things 1) Get
our Work Team focused on the Rules of Procedure and 2) sending out a kite is
up to us but understand that constituency representatives we are requesting
attention from are overloaded. Chuck is missing the point.  We are NOT
sending the kite to the reps, we are sending it to the constituency members.
We need community feedback; not councilor feedback.  In this regard, perhaps
we can have staff set up an email address for comments to the work team so
that all can monitor the responses as they come in.

 

My preference is to work through the Rules of Procedure.  By focusing on
this, we may be able to better identify the organizational administrative
functions we are stating in the document are needed to be staffed.  This is
my own opinion.  With this said, I have attached the kite document
containing my edits, capturing thoughts I?ve interpreted from other work
team members and from the original feedback we received.  I have also added
a 4th question. From the start of this dialogue, I have tried to clarify
that there is a clear difference between ?policy councilors? and
?administration managers? ? and that both have different and separate skill
sets and tasks.  If I read your amendment correctly (This document
identifies two primary sets of duties for GNSO Council members) you are
dramatically altering the kite proposal from this initial position.  Your
amendment calls for splitting the GNSO Council into two groups?  Is that
your intention?   

 

Regarding question 4: The kite was intended to ask one question, i.e., does
this idea make sense to you or not?  Questions 2 and 3 were intended simply
to get a deeper understanding of the ?yes? or ?no? question, so that we
could have a better read.  The idea was to ask a ?closed? question.  A
closed question being one that delivers a single answer.  Question 4 is, in
my view, far too ?open?, and while it may or may not provide a broad array
of speculative answers, it will do little to give the work team the type of
guidance it needs, while turning the kite into a broader based document than
it was intended to do.  I am concerned that we are all losing sight of the
intended goal as the weeks roll by?

 

If the team is comfortable with my edits, and we have consensus to
distribute this document for the purpose of seeking broader constituency
feedback as you encourage, then I will do so.  We can decide this on our
Wednesday scheduled call leaving enough time to distribute prior to Sydney.


 

I hope that I have articulated my position satisfactorily.  Comments welcome
to my edits.

 

Ray

 

  _____  

From: owner-gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Ron Andruff
Sent: Monday, June 08, 2009 7:29 AM
To: gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-osc-ops] GNSO "kite" and Sydney
Importance: High

 

Dear Chairman,

Dear all,

 

I would like to remind the Chair and team that we are now just 12 days away
from the start of the Sydney meeting and we have yet to send out the ?kite?
document for the community?s consideration.  As we have noted repeatedly on
our calls, we NEED community feedback because there are so few of us
participating on this work team.  Therefore I strongly urge the Chair to
finalize the document to his liking and send it out to the current
constituencies for their circulation to their members in advance of the
Sydney meeting so that we can gain the benefit of face-to-face feedback.

 

On a separate, but related, note, I see that our work team (like all others)
is scheduled to meet for 60 minutes on Sunday, June 21st.  I think that this
is far too little time and therefore would propose that the Chair establish
a two hour meeting to give us the time to discuss and debate how to deal
with the Rule of Procedure.  In this regard, I have understood that Rob and
Julie are going through them now to provide us with an understanding of (1)
who else ? and in what capacity ? are dealing with this task; and (2) to
provide a ?road map? for our work team vis-à-vis the priority of each rule
vis-à-vis which ones we take on first, second, etc.

 

In this regard, as we have discussed on our calls, the hope has been that
the work done on the SOI/DOI as well as that done on the ?kite? would be
folded into the Rules that our work team recommends.

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

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