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

["Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <mcade@att.com>]

I can only reply for WHOIS TF and Transfer TF.

In WHOIS TF, co chaired by Antonio Harris and Marilyn Cade, there are up to three reps for each constituency and the GA, working together. An initial set of one per Constituency/GA was appointed; and the TF asked for flexibility and recruited/decision by each group /addition of two more, IF wanted by the group. A couple of constituencies chose to have one or two instead of three. Their choice. They determine whether to add elected NC rep or member of constituency/GA. their choice. Mix of both versions exists.

Transfer TF: established with one designated by constituency. Expanded to add one more, per constiutency/Ga if determined by group. Some added a second, some didn't. Their choice. They decide whether to have NC member or recruit other member. Mix of both exists.


-----Original Message-----
From: James Love [mailto:love@cptech.org]
Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2002 11:11 AM
To: Thomas Roessler; ga@dnso.org
Subject: Re: [ga] Policy development / improving Task Forces.


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