Re: [ga] Policy development / improving Task Forces.
I think the difficulty of doing this right is one of the most powerful
arguments for decentralization and parallel processing. ICANN's sole job
would be to prevent inconsistent outcomes (e.g. two groups authorizing the
On Thu, 4 Apr 2002, Thomas Roessler wrote:
> 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.
> (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.)
Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
A. Michael Froomkin | Professor of Law | firstname.lastname@example.org
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285 | +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) | http://www.law.tm
-->It's hot here.<--
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