[ga] Policy development / improving Task Forces.

[Thomas Roessler <roessler@does-not-exist.org>]

Let's, for a moment, assume that ICANN goes for a bottom-up policy 
development process, where the policy actually binds the board.  How 
should work be organized?  The two obvious options we have are 
(rather closed) task forces and (rather open) working groups.

For a while, I've been toying around with some ideas on how to 
improve task forces - for, actually, I believe that it is reasonable 
to do the "hard work" in a small group where most interest groups 
are represented.  One such idea which I have (in part) also been 
proposing on today's names council call goes like this:

 - Composition of task force (this was not in the call): Limited; 
   members from those constituencies/interest groups concerned.  This 
   should always not be limited to the members of a certain SO 
   (assuming that there will be SOs), but there should be a flexible 
   way for other groups to participate if needed.  Example: The GAC 
   should probably participate in policy development on issues they 
   have introduced into the discussion, such as country names in 
   .info.  With other topics, consumer advocates, experts, etc., 
   should be included.

 - Most work should happen on a publicly archived mailing list, plus 
   telephone conferences. Minutes of such conferences should be 
   posted to the public list.
 
 - There should be professional staff on the task force, which should 
   be independent of any special interest groups involved. This staff 
   should AT LEAST be responsible for producing a final report.  I'd 
   actually suggest that such staff should CHAIR the task force 
   (working group, whatever).

 - Deadlines.  There should be tight deadlines, and these should be 
   respected.  Nobody should be able to win by procrastinating.  In 
   the worst case, some groups' input may have to be ignored.

 - Such policy development must be balanced with appropriate 
   independent review.  Topics of review should, in particular, be 
   the quality of outreach

 - The review panel (or however it's called) should have the power to 
   add parties (constituencies, ...) to the process for the future.

In such a process, a GA (or at large membership, or whatever) would 
serve as for the representation of interested individuals, and also 
send representatives.

I'm not sure who should initiate or manage such a process: This 
could either be the board (one may hope that they don't ignore their 
own task forces), or it could be some kind of SO council.  It 
should, however, be noted that a names council or equivalent would 
not necessarily be needed for this process to work.

Comments?

(Please try, as far as you can, to limit discussion of constituency 
individual groups, board composition, and the like, in this thread. 
I'll try to address this in a different context.)

-- 
Thomas Roessler                          http://log.does-not-exist.org/
--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html