<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [gnso-osc] Latest Draft Version of OSC Charter
- To: Robert Hoggarth <robert.hoggarth@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [gnso-osc] Latest Draft Version of OSC Charter
- From: Robin Gross <robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 20:29:23 -0800
Thank you, Rob. This is very helpful.
Best,
Robin
On Nov 26, 2008, at 3:58 PM, Robert Hoggarth wrote:
Dear Robin and Chuck:
As the community embarks on a detailed discussion of GNSO
Improvements implementation issues, there are quite a few open
matters to be discussed and debated – particularly within the
context of the OSC. I have taken the opportunity provided by
Chuck’s invitation yesterday to share some personal observations
about the matters referenced in your correspondence over the past
24 hours regarding the relationship between stakeholders and
constituency structures in the GNSO. I have not run these specific
thoughts by Denise and Roberto but I believe they are supported by
specific textual references below. This note is fairly long
because I think the issues raised by Robin’s proposed edits merited
a fair treatment. I hope that it provides some useful fodder for
future conversations within the OSC.
In many areas the Board has been pretty specific regarding its
intentions. In others there is a lot of room for flexibility and
different implementation approaches. I anticipate that the OSC and
its work teams will need to refer quite often to the 3 February BGC
Report on GNSO Improvements adopted by the Board in Paris for
insights and guidance. I have included a couple of slices from
that document below that may be germane to your present
correspondence. They highlight the significant amount of overlap
that faces the community on many of the implementation issues that
need to be addressed. I think all members of the OSC may find it
helpful to review pages 27 to 49 of the BGC Report (which can be
found here - http://www.icann.org/topics/gnso-improvements/gnso-
improvements-report-03feb08.pdf ) as they consider the OSC Charter
and the development of guidance for the various OSC work teams.
Recognizing Differences:
As a way forward on the proposed OSC charter language regarding
stakeholder groups and constituencies, may I suggest that you
consider accepting the concept provided in the first part of
Robin’s proposed language “while recognizing that differences exist
between stakeholder groups” and expand the concept by adding the
words “and constituencies.” Robin’s suggestion is a helpful
reminder that the BGC Report did not anticipate a cookie cutter
approach for structures in the “improved’ GNSO and specifically
noted the importance of maintaining a measure of constituency
independence and diversity. At the same time, the BGC Report
expects that there must be some consistency and commonality across
different GNSO structures. The following BGC Report text spanning
pages 42 and 43 is very instructive on the matter:
“ICANN is currently engaged in a series of initiatives aimed at
further improving levels of
accountability and transparency throughout the organization. The
GNSO Council and the
GNSO constituencies, like all of ICANN’s structures, need to ensure
that all of their
processes adhere to the highest standards. The reviews of the GNSO
suggest that there is
a need for greater transparency within constituencies and greater
consistency across
constituency structures. The constituencies should take the lead in
formulating common
operating principles, with participation from the Council and
staff. Within certain broad
and important guidelines, there can still be room for innovation
and differentiation in the
detailed procedures developed by each constituency that best meet
the needs of that
constituency.” (emphasis added)
The document continues on page 43:
“In addition, the GNSO constituencies, with Council and staff
participation, should
develop clear operating principles for each constituency to ensure
that all constituencies
function in a representative, open, transparent and democratic
manner. Operating
procedures adopted by constituencies should reflect common
principles and follow these guidelines:
o Mailing and discussion lists should be open and publicly archived
(with posting rights
limited to members).
o Procedures for developing policy positions should be clear. There
should also be
publicly available information about how many participants from
each constituency
were involved in the development of any policy position.
o Constituency processes should encourage participation from
stakeholders across the
globe. Where possible, relevant documents should be made available
in multiple
languages.
o There should be term limits for constituency officers, so as to
help attract new
members and provide everyone with the chance to participate in
leadership positions.
o There should be an emphasis on reaching consensus to achieve
objectives and closure
on issues.” (emphasis added)
That latter passage above seems to emphasize the importance of
creating a level playing field that applies to all constituencies
and identifies a significant role for all constituencies in that
ongoing effort. The BGC Report seems to expect that some
consistent guidelines and operating practices be established to
ensure that all community members can be assured that all GNSO
structures operate in an open, transparent and fair manner.
The Respective Roles of Constituencies and Stakeholder Groups:
Acknowledging Chuck’s concern, I would also suggest that you
consider not accepting the second half of Robin’s suggested edit,
“that stakeholder groups are primarily responsible for establishing
their own constituencies.” At best the BGC Report is unclear on
that issue. It seems evident from the passage above that, for the
time being, constituencies remain a fundamental element of the GNSO
structure.
That status may indeed change over time and may depend on some of
the decisions that are reached by the work teams. The following
language spanning pages 32 and 33 of the BGC report sheds some
additional light on this matter:
“The proposal to create four broad Stakeholder Groups bears some
similarity to
Recommendation #19 of the [London School of Economics] LSE Review,
which suggested creating three larger constituency groups
representing registration interests, business and civil society.
The LSE suggested such a reorganization to respond to “multiple
pieces of evidence about how interests are currently organizing
themselves within the GNSO” (see LSE Review,
Section 4.35). It sought to propose a structure that is “simpler,
balanced, clearer to
explain to potential members and time-proofed against future
changes in the Internet that
are certain to occur.” Instead of a rigid structure that can have
difficulty adapting to
changes “over as little as seven years,” a new structure could
“flexibly accommodate
changes in the balance and weights of different sectors and types
of involvement with
Internet policy issues.”
We agree with this conclusion and support the need for a new way to
approach
organization of the Council. The stakeholder groups may function
only as a “caucus,”
bringing together like-minded stakeholders to elect representatives
to the Council who
can represent them. This structure would be fluid enough to
accommodate new
constituencies or the formation of new interest groups. It will be
important for the
implementation team to consider how to implement this flexibility
within the overall
stakeholder structure set forth in these recommendations. Our goal
is definitely not to
create a new layer of bureaucracy, as we heard concerns about at
the San Juan Meeting.
Alternatively, if the GNSO believes it is desirable, the four
stakeholder groups could take
on additional functions, such as trying to coordinate and document
positions on policy
development questions.
One advantage of this new model for organizing stakeholder
participation is to remove
concern that the addition of new constituencies or interest groups
could create an internal
imbalance in the current composition of the Council. By creating
four broad stakeholder
groups, the number of constituencies is less important and can
increase (or decrease) with time. Indeed, it would be inconsistent
with ICANN’s processes to try to limit arbitrarily the number of
constituencies that people could self-form. Making it easier to
form a new constituency can also address any obstacles people
perceive in joining existing
constituencies. Overall, this approach can encourage the
participation of more people in
the GNSO. Many details, of course, remain to be worked out
concerning the new
stakeholder structure for the Council, including the role of
constituencies and/or interest
groups within them. As noted earlier, we welcome the GNSO working
with Staff to
develop the appropriate Implementation Plan.”
There is a lot to absorb in the four paragraphs above – including
the alternative visions of both more and less bureaucracy at the
Stakeholder Group level, the concept of constituency independence
and a clear recognition of constituency self-formation. All matters
that will undoubtedly prompt lively and interesting conversation in
the work team deliberations.
I hope this note has provided some useful background and context
for further deliberations and discussion among OSC members on these
and other matters.
Best,
Rob Hoggarth
424.558.4805
On 11/25/08 10:19 PM, "Robin Gross" <robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Chuck,
I am trying to mitigate the cross-constituency meddling in the
affairs of other constituencies that is in the current draft.
What was written in the draft was that rules would be established
for forming constituencies and it seemed to apply that these rules
would be some kind of "one-size-fits-all" way of establishing
constituencies. But the needs and sizes of the various
constituencies will vary - especially between stakeholder groups.
I don't think NCUC should be telling the commercial stakeholder
group how to organize the constituencies within that group and vice-
versa. There will always be disparity in the number of
participants between constituencies, and the ability of volunteers
to be as aggressive as paid lobbyists, etc., so trying to establish
rules to govern as if there were a level playing field does not
reflect reality. I think constituencies and stakeholder groups
should be given as much flexibility as possible in their
organization and we should not try to hamstring this process with a
zeal to impose uniform rules when needs and situations are not
uniform. So while I'm not insistent on the particular wording that
I suggested, I am definitely not comfortable with the way it is
currently drafted for these reasons.
Thanks,
Robin
On Nov 25, 2008, at 5:26 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Thanks Robin. You added in two places, "stakeholder groups are
primarily responsible for establishing their own constituencies".
I am not sure that is consistent with the Board recommendations.
It is my understanding that intent was that it should be possible
for constituencies to self-form and that procedures should be put
in place to facilitate that. That is quite different than what you
added.
What do others think?
Rob - it might be helpful for you to get some feedback from Denise
and maybe Roberto as Chair of the BGC.
Chuck
From: owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Robin Gross
Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 7:05 PM
To: gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-osc] Latest Draft Version of OSC Charter
Oops -the file is now attached to this email - apologies. :-)
Robin
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
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
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|