[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
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.
(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 email@example.com list.
Send mail to firstname.lastname@example.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html