Thanks for the analysis, Avri.  I agree with the institutional dynamics
and your recommendation that we support a new Standing Committee.

--Wendy

On 10/13/2010 04:18 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> 
> This is a note to explain my take on one of the discussions that is ongoing in the GNSO Council.
> 
> I must warn people, it is totally a process question, and thus you may want to stop reading at this point if these minute process issues cause you to want to pull your hair out, throw things and/or scream.
> 
> The issue concerns the continuation of the two steering groups OSC and PPSC versus the formation of a new Standing Committee  to monitor GNSO Improvements recommended by the OSC/PPSC and approved by the Council.  As I understand it, this issue is up for review at the next council meeting.
> 
> Staff has suggested, and appears to be championing, a proposal that the OSC and PPSC continue to be responsible for reviewing the implementation details of their proposals.  Other have recommended that there be a single Standing Committee that is responsible for all of the implementation issues that might come up with the implementations of either of the current committees.
> 
> I am arguing for several reasons, that the OSC and PPSC be allowed to finish their work and blink out of existence as was planned. I am further arguing that it is inappropriate to send issues back to these committees for review once the council has approved their work and the implementation has begun but that issues should be referred to a new Standing Committee empowered with review of the implementations.
> 
> 1. My first reason is historical.  The original formulation of the OSC and PPSC that was recommended was for a set of permanent standing committees.  The Council at the time objected to the notion of permanence for the two committees and specifically crafted the language for two committees that would have a fixed work load.  Not only that, the entire focus on the Committees and the work teams was oriented towards completing the work and being done.  Anyone who has been attending meetings in these groups knows how much they are oriented toward completion, not the long run.  Each of these groups has already had its life extended due to not having completed its work, so the impetus to complete the work is strong.
> 
> It is, of course, possible to rewrite the charters of both the OSC and PPSC to be Standing Committees instead of creating a new group.  I will explain why I do not recommend this route below.
> 
> 2. Rechartering the OSC and PPSC to work as Standing Committees instead of Steering Committees who do their work and then end requires 2 rechartering efforts.  The new Standing Committee requires a single chartering effort.
> 
> 3. When a group has been totally focused on finishing its work, deciding that it has more work to do, is rarely a recipe for success.  Even when many of the same people move to a new group, the new group has a different mindset and dynamic and the people situate themselves differently, without the baggage of the previous group.
> 
> 4. Some of the issues that will need review have to do with combinatorial effects of recommendations made in various work teams, sometimes across the two Steering Committees.  These are best reviewed, studied and reworked in a single committee.  Keeping the work in two separate committee requires, at a minimum, establishing a liaison function between the committees in order to negotiate differences.  this is being seen in the work in the Council Operating procedures Team (OSC) and the Working Group guidelines WT (PPSC) on the problems with SOI/DOI.
> 
> 5. Some of the implementation work will involve balancing the recommendations against the various constituency and stakeholder group charters.  As these new charters are negotiated and accepted, having a new venue where discussions on the improvements procdures can take place using a clean slate might be useful.
> 
> 6. Part of the intended purpose of the Standing Committee was an oversight function on the implementation work that was being done by staff to support the recommendations with issues like reviewing forms and web changes.  Again the combinatorial effect of such changes requires that there be a single point of review and discussion.  In creating the Standing Committee, it will be useful to combine the abilities of members from the various work teams into a single review and recommendation body.
> 
> 7. The same group that recommended a policy is often the worst candidate for reviewing its efficacy as the group culture often requires defensive attitudes.  Even if some of the members from the previous group are present, the group dynamics in a new group allows for different perception without the urge to defend.
> 
> While the OSC and PPSC are winding down, there are already issues starting to crop up.  Assuming that the decision is made in favor of the single Standing committee, it should be formed as soon as possible in order to offload the existing groups of any rework, so they can finish their original work lists.   Otherwise they may go into a perpetual state of almost done, but not quite.
> 
> a.
> 
> Note to the Council members feel free to use any of this (cut/paste, slice/dice) if it is useful in your council deliberations.  And feel free to stick me on any chartering group, should one be formed that allows non council participants.
> 
> 


-- 
Wendy Seltzer -- [log in to unmask] +1 914-374-0613
Fellow, Princeton Center for Information Technology Policy
Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html
http://www.chillingeffects.org/
https://www.torproject.org/
http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/