Re: [ga] Policy development / improving Task Forces.

["YJ Park" <yjpark@myepark.com>]

Jamie,

I want to clarify what you were told and what has been under way in the 
NCC as previous NC member of NCDNHC. 

It used to be limited to NC members when TF was firstly implemented 
after Yokohama meeting within NC, July 2000. Then NC passed a 
resolution that non-NC can be on the TF members not TF chair in 2001.  
 
Following such resolution, 2001 AdCom members of NCDNHC decided 
that TF representatives are to be elected by AdCom members after open
nomination process to members and notified as such in order to balance 
timely representation to the TFs and transparency, openness, fairness.

As witnessed, even AdCom election took more than one month, almost
two months therefore, 2002 AdCom members has continued its practice 
admitting difficulty to manage too many elections within the constituency. 

Today there was Whois TF call. Sarah Andrews was invited to the TF 
meeting as an observer from NCDNHC for the TF meeting. As a sole 
nominee for Whois TF from NCDNHC as of today, TF chair agreed to
do so even though NCDNHC didn't finish its election process yet.

YJ

> WRT the Task Forces.    At one point we were told that only the members from
> the NCC serving on the Names Council could serve on these, and that was a
> bad policy.  If the TF is an important policy making process, they have to
> be more open, to tap the best people, etc.   One good rule would be to
> require each DNSO constituency to tell its own members of vacancies, and to
> permit some discussion regarding who will represent the constituency
> formally in the TF.  The NCC has recently agreed to do this.  There might
> also be some better attention to conflict of interest disclosures.    I like
> most of Thomas Roessler's suggestions regarding transparency, deadlines,
> etc.
> Jamie
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Thomas Roessler" <roessler@does-not-exist.org>
> To: <ga@dnso.org>
> Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2002 10:36 AM
> Subject: [ga] Policy development / improving Task Forces.
> 
> 
> > 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@dnso.org list.
> > Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >
> >
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 
--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html