Fantastic work, Robin. A few additional comment where I would like to add something below: >>> Robin Gross <[log in to unmask]> 12/21/2006 3:20:47 PM >>> >Recommendation 2 >"GNSO Constituencies should be required to show how many members have >participated in the policy positions they adopt." We find this recommendation to be unrealistic. The issue is not "how many" participated but whether the members support the position and whether the membership has had an opportunity to review and disagree with a position, and an opportunity to re-elect or rebuff representatives who do things that do not reflect their views. Domain names are a small part of the mission of most nonprofits. Members in our constituency do not have the time or resources to track in detail every single action taken by ICANN's GNSO. Of necessity, constituency participants must focus their time on the specific issues that interest them the most and leave to others the ones that don't. >Recommendation 5 >"Constituencies should focus on growing balanced representation and >active participation broadly proportional to wider global distributions >for relevant indicators." We agree and note that according to the LSE report the NCUC has the best record in this regard, although there is still room for improvement. >Recommendation 17 -- I would like to add something to Robin's statement: >* NCUC supports recommendation 17. Better use of task forces would help >the GNSO to carryout its work much for effectively and through a wider >range of stakeholders. ADD: However, unless these TFs are better managed and pushed to reach agreement or defined areas of no agreement more rapidly, a larger number of simultaneous Task Forces will only create more confusion and gaming of the policy development process. >Recommendation 18 >"An ICANN Associate stakeholder category of participation should be >created, so as to create a pool of readily available external expertise, >which can be drawn upon to populate Task Forces where relevant." > >* NCUC supports recommendation 18. A new means of obtaining more >diversity of viewpoints and a broader range of expertise would be a >useful input into GNSO policy making discussions. PROPOSED REPLACEMENT: Who would choose these "stakeholders"? Who will decide that they are "experts"? How can we we ensure that they are balanced in terms of their policy perspectives? Unless these questions are answered, we cannot support this recommendation.