Re: [ga] Policy development / improving Task Forces.

[Thomas Roessler <roessler@does-not-exist.org>]

That is, you are advocating the "policy market" approach also 
suggested by David Johnson in his earlier posting.  

Still, there may be a desire for uniform policy development - either 
because it's plain necessary (think "minimum requirements"), or 
because it's economically desirable for some key players involved 
(think "UDRP").  In both cases, you need a reasonable process.

So, once again - what do you folks think about the process 
suggested, when applied within these limits?

-- 
Thomas Roessler                          http://log.does-not-exist.org/






On 2002-04-04 10:45:53 -0500, Michael Froomkin wrote:
>Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 10:45:53 -0500 (EST)
>From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <froomkin@law.miami.edu>
>To: Thomas Roessler <roessler@does-not-exist.org>
>Cc: ga@dnso.org
>Subject: 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
>same TLD).
>
>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.
>> 
>> Comments?
>> 
>> (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    |   froomkin@law.tm
>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 ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html