Personal Comments Klaus Stoll
The following are the personal comments of Klaus Stoll with regard to: Draft Report GNSO review. General observations. Whilst the best efforts where made by all involved, the process to create the report and the draft report as it is published now, should not be used to introduce major changes to the GNSO. One reason for this is that the GNSO review did take place at a time where due to other burning issues, such as the IANA transition, the report did not receive the input and attention it needed and more important the most important element to create a authoritative report is missing: The ongoing dialogue between all the GNSO stakeholders involved to discuss issues. For this reason the Draft Report should be seen as a report that highlight some of the important GNSO issues for further discussion by the GNSO stakeholders, but should under any circumstances be used as the basis for decision making. In overall the 36 recommendations made seem to cover only a very limited number of issues that face the GNSO today. The report does not touch on some of the basic issues like representation and accountability of, and dialogue between, GNSO stakeholders and the 36 recommendations are misleading as they try to address and remedy with partial proposed administrative solutions and does not look at the underlying issues. As an example the report proposes professional facilitators and moderators where it should look how the direct exchange and dialogue between the GNSO stakeholders can be improved. It does not help to bring outside facilitators/moderators in that are not 100% emerged in ICANN itself and lack understanding of the uniqueness of ICANN, and that then try to add an additional barrier to direct dialogue by adding facilitation methodologies. The report wants to recommend formal leadership assessment and training, which is well and good, but this assessment and training makes only sense when the underlying structures and relationships are healthy. As the report does not address the underlying structures and relationships, the recommendations can only seen as bad aids and as markers to an ongoing and deeper discussion. Again my plea is: Please do not use this report as a authoritative source for decision making but as a limited contribution to an much needed and ongoing discussion. |