I agree with you, Robin. --c.a. Robin Gross wrote: > Hi there, > > I've updated and revised Milton's previous draft of these comments on > the LSE report. Below is the text of the proposed revised comments. > > Please let me know what revisions you'd like in the next day because we > this is due on 22 December. > > I don't think we necessarily have to comment on every LSE recommendation > - many are just to vague to be for or against. I'd prefer that we only > comment on the recommendations that we have definite opinions about. > > Thank you! > Robin > > ==================== > > v.0.5 > Comments of the Non-Commercial Users Constituency (NCUC) on the > GNSO Review: LSE Report and Recommendations > December 2006 > > > ICANN’s Non-Commercial User Constituency (NCUC) welcomes the London > School of Economics (LSE) report on the GNSO and urges the Board to > implement many, but not all, of its recommendations. > > Recommendation 1 > “A centralized register of all GNSO stakeholders should be established, > which is up-to-date and publicly accessible. It should include members > of Constituencies and others involved in the GNSO task forces.” > > [no opinion developed] > > Recommendation 2 > “GNSO Constituencies should be required to show how many members have > participated in the policy positions they adopt.” > > [no opinion developed] > > Recommendation 3 > “There needs to be greater coherence and standardization across > constituency operations. For this to work effectively, more ICANN staff > support would be needed for constituencies.” > > * NCUC does not support recommendation 3. Constituencies should be > funded by ICANN so they can provide their own staff support for these > roles. It does not have to be an ICANN staff member that fulfills this > function and role, which NCUC agrees needs to be filled. > > Recommendation 4 > “A GNSO Constituency support officer should be appointed to help > Constituencies develop their operations, websites and outreach activity.” > > * NCUC supports recommendation 4 as it would enable constituencies, > particularly the less-funded constituencies to carry out the work of the > organization in a more consistent fashion. > > Recommendation 5 > “Constituencies should focus on growing balanced representation and > active participation broadly proportional to wider global distributions > for relevant indicators.” > > [no opinion developed] > > > Recommendation 6 > “The basis for participation in GNSO activities needs to be revised, > from Constituency based membership to one deriving from direct ICANN > stakeholder participation.” > > * NCUC supports recommendation 6 since many people or entities do not > fit neatly into any ICANN constituency and it is important the ICANN > hear from all viewpoints. Also, because hardly anyone in the public has > heard of the GNSO, participation in ICANN via the GNSO will not garner > much interest and remain at a low level. > > Recommendation 7 > “The GNSO should improve the design and organization of the current > website, develop a website strategy for continual improvement and growth > over the next three years, and review usage statistics on a regular > basis to check that traffic to the website is growing over time and > understand more fully what external audiences are interested in.” > > * NCUC supports recommendation 7. Since the website is the main tool > through which GNSO policy discussions are made available to the world, > it is extremely important the information be accessible and easy to > find. Most agree that ICANN should continue to upgrade its website, > including the GNSO website. > > Recommendation 8 > “Document management within the GNSO needs to be improved and the > presentation of policy development work made much more accessible.” > > * NCUC supports recommendation 8. Closely tied to recommendation 7, an > online document management system to better provide the public with GNSO > policymaking discussions and reports would be an important improvement. > > Recommendation 9 > “The GNSO should develop and publish annually a Policy Development Plan > for the next two years, to act both as a strategy document for current > and upcoming policy work, and as a communications and marketing tool for > general consumption outside of the ICANN community. It should dovetail > with ICANN’s budget and strategy documents.” > > * NCUC supports recommendation 9. Developing policy development plans at > the GNSO will encourage long-term thinking and prioritization of issues. > > Recommendation 10 > “The GNSO and ICANN should work pro actively to provide > information-based incentives for stakeholder organizations to monitor > and participate in GNSO issues.” > > [no opinion developed] > > Recommendation 11 > “The position of the GNSO Council Chair needs to become much more > visible within ICANN and to carry more institutional weight.” > > * NCUC supports recommendation 11. In general the GNSO needs to be more > widely recognized as the appropriate forum for public policymaking at > ICANN. > > Recommendation 12 > “The policy on GNSO Councilors declaring interests should be > strengthened. Provision for a vote of ‘no confidence’ leading to > resignation should be introduced for noncompliance.” > > * NCUC supports recommendation 12. Transparency and accountability > regarding the various interests of GNSO Councilors is always an > appropriate objective for good public policy making. > > Recommendation 13 > “Fixed term limits should be introduced for GNSO Councilors either of > two two-year terms (as applied in some Constituencies already) or > perhaps of a single three-year term.” > > * NCUC strongly supports recommendation 13. In order for there to be an > even playing field across all constituencies, they should all have term > limits. Otherwise the constituencies who do have limits have an > advantage over those that do not in directing GNSO policy work over > time. Being a GNSO councilor should not be a “career”, but rather a > public service done only for a few years. The GNSO election structures > should discourage career GNSO councilors and encourage the widest range > of participation and a diversity of viewpoints. NCUC supports a standard > two or three term limit of two-year terms for each constituency. > > Recommendation 14 > “The GNSO Council and related policy staff should work more closely > together to grow the use of project-management methodologies in policy > development work, particularly focusing on how targeted issue analysis > can drive data collection from stakeholders (rather than vice versa) .” > > * NCUC does not support recommendation 14. The GNSO policy decisions and > recommendations should be made by the various constituencies, not by > ICANN policy staff as the text supporting this recommendation suggested. > ICANN policy staff officers best serve in the role of facilitators of > the discussion, not arbiters of competing policy issues. > > Recommendation 15 > “The GNSO Council should rely on face-to-face meetings supplemented by > online collaborative methods of working. The Chair should seek to reduce > the use of whole-Council teleconferencing.” > > * NCUC does not support recommendation 15. Even if ICANN were able to > pay for the travel costs of the meeting participants, it is unlikely > NCUC members (or members of other constituencies) can donate a number of > days of their time to attend more face-to-face meetings. Most NCUC > members (as with other constituencies) have full-time jobs that do not > allow for frequent face-to-face meetings at different corners of the > globe for ICANN policy work. NCUC supports getting as much work done via > telephone and email as possible, and to rely upon holding face-to-face > meetings, only when absolutely necessary. > > Recommendation 16 > “The GNSO Councilors should have access to a fund for reasonable travel > and accommodation expenses to attend designated Council meetings, > instead of having to meet such costs from their own resources as at > present.” > > * NCUC strongly supports recommendation 16. The lack of funding > available to constituencies is one of the biggest impediments to > participation at ICANN meetings. ICANN should be serious about its > attempt to engage in policymaking by providing for the travel of the > councilors doing the work of the organization. ICANN should > automatically fund the reasonable travel costs of all GNSO council > members and an executive member of each constituency to ICANN Board > members. ICANN should also provide for the reasonable travel costs of > task force members who are carrying out the work of the organization. > > Recommendation 17 > “The GNSO Council should make more uses of Task Forces. Task Force > participants should be more diverse and should be drawn from a wider > range of people in the Internet community, and national and > international policy-making communities.” > > * 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. > > 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. > > Recommendation 19 > “The current GNSO Constituency structure should be radically simplified > so as to be more capable of responding to rapid changes in the Internet. > The Constituency structure should be clear, comprehensive (covering all > potential stakeholders) and flexible, allowing the GNSO to respond > easily to rapid changes in the makeup of Internet stakeholders. We > suggest a set of three larger Constituencies to represent respectively > Registration interests, Business and Civil Society.” > > * NCUC strongly supports recommendation 19. The LSE report suggests that > GNSO be restructured into three basic groupings: the registration supply > industry, business interests, and civil society. NCUC agrees that this > is a cleaner and more workable constituency structure than now exists. > There are important details to be worked out, however. > > The existing structure gives business, particularly entertainment > companies or other intellectual property interests, too much power in > GNSO policy making and an unfair advantage. Non-commercial interests > should be given equal weight to commercial interests in GNSO policy > making as a matter of principle. > > Recommendation 20 > “A reorganization of the GNSO Constituencies would also allow the > Council to be made somewhat smaller (we suggest 16 members) and hence > easier to manage.” > > * NCUC strongly disagrees with recommendation 20. While the Council > should be made smaller, the details for implementing that vague goal are > unsupportable. > > We disagree with the report's proposal that registration suppliers and > business users be given 5 votes on the policy making Council, while > civil society be given only 3. This kind of discrimination against a > particular sector of societal interests is unjustified. Nothing in the > factual findings of the report supports this discrimination. The report > does not even mount an argument for it. We suggest that the supply > industry be given 5 members, and business and civil society each given > 4, with the remaining 3 appointed by the NomCom. > > We note that the existence of three "at large" GNSO Council members > appointed by the Nominating Committee does not compensate for this > inequality. The NomCom-appointed Council members can come from any > constituency; the NomCom contains diverse interests and is not > guaranteed to appoint members sympathetic to civil society. > > How the civil society representatives on the Council are selected is > very important condition upon our support. We note that the concept of a > "civil society" category leaves unresolved issues about the relationship > between NCUC and ALAC. While we strongly favor a more unified structure > for civil society participation in ICANN, NCUC representatives are > elected under a formal and legitimate membership structure, whereas the > process of selecting ALAC Board members is complicated and > non-transparent. As long as ALAC and GNSO are structurally separate, and > ALAC's structures are incomplete, civil society representation within > the GNSO will have to be mediated by NCUC. > > Recommendation 21 > “The definition of achieving consensus should be raised to 75 per cent. > Weighted voting should be abolished. Both measures could be used to > create more incentives for different constituencies to engage > constructively with each other, rather than simply reiterating a ‘bloc’ > position in hopes of picking up enough uncommitted votes so as to win.” > > * NCUC does not support recommendation 21. The LSE Report proposes to > raise the threshold for a "consensus policy" to 75% of the vote. We do > not support this recommendation and would prefer to retain a 2/3 super > majority as the threshold for "consensus." Under the LSE proposal, > supplier interests and business interests could, if only 4 of their > representatives agreed, prevent a 75% majority from forming and thus > block any policy. The public interest advocates in civil society, even > if they were completely unified, could not exercise such a veto. This is > not a correct balance of policy influence. Moreover the very high 75% > requirement would basically freeze the status quo in place. If the > status quo were a very good state of affairs, this might be an > acceptable approach. The LSE’s recommendation would give commercial > interests an automatic veto over the public-interest without any > explanation or justification. > > If representation on the council is to be weighted, it is reasonable > that the registration industry, whose survival depends entirely on ICANN > contracts and policies, have some kind of special status in the outcome > of policies. They need to be protected against various forms of > crippling regulation or expropriation at the hands of GNSO Council > legislators who do not have to directly bear the costs of their > policies. But there is no legitimate reason why commercial interests > should be given the same veto power while non-commercial ordinary > Internet users denied it. We also think that registrars and registries > often have conflicting interests and therefore it is better for there to > be wider representation for them in order to accommodate this structural > difference. > > Recommendation 22 > “The way in which the GNSO Council votes to elect two directors to the > ICANN Board should be changed to use the Supplementary Vote system.” > > [no opinion developed] > > Recommendation 23 > “The amount of detailed prescriptive provision in the ICANN Bylaws > relating to the operations of the GNSO should be reduced. ICANN Bylaws > should outline broad principles and objectives for the GNSO but the > detailed operational provision (including the section on the PDP) should > be transferred to the GNSO Rules of Procedure. This would allow the GNSO > to agree amendments and to introduce new innovations in its working > methods and time lines in a more realistic and flexible way, while > operating within ICANN’s guiding principles.” > > *NCUC supports recommendation 23. The current structure in the ICANN > Bylaws is far too micro-managing of the GNSO work to be useful. Much of > the detailed prescriptive provisions in the ICANN Bylaws for GNSO work > should be removed. The GNSO is the best position to manage its internal > operations and objectives. > > > Recommendation 24 > “Both ICANN and the GNSO Council should periodically (say once every > five years) compile or commission a formal quantitative and qualitative > assessment of the influence of the GNSO's work on developing policy for > generic names. This should include an analysis of how the GNSO's > influence with national governments, international bodies and the > commercial sector might be extended.” > > [no opinion developed] > >