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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.9.10/1812 - Release Date: 11/25/2008 7:53 PM