[council] First thoughts on acting on BR 2008-12-11 02
Hi,
As was briefly mentioned at the last meeting, we need to do something
about this.
Board resoluion 2008-12-11-02
"that members of the GNSO community work with members of the ALAC/At-
Large community and representatives of potential new "non-commercial"
constituencies to jointly develop a recommendation for the composition
and organizational structure of a Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group
that does not duplicate the ALAC and its supporting structures, yet
ensures that the gTLD interests of individual Internet users"
The following is an idea that has been discussed between the chair of
ALAC and myself and vetted a little with relevant staff. I understand
she has taken the proposal to the ALAC (I thought we were going to
talk about it some more first, but never mind) and I am now bringing
it to the council.
Given the pressure of time, we could use a model similar to the one
developed by the board to force the GNSO constituencies to action on
restructuring.
I.e. Create a joint group of GNSO and ALAC representatives to spend 30
days coming up with a suggestion.
Number of people:
From the GNSO we could have at
Option a. 1 per constituency + an NCA = 7
Option b. 1 from each SG + an NCA = 5
(given were we are heading with the restructuring it might be
interesting to try that model. note this is not council members but
constituency/SG members)
From ALAC there should be at least one from each region = 5
If we went with the 7 person model, not sure how they would pick the
other 2.
We should add a GAC observer as well.
And we could ask (i.e. volunteer) Rob to coordinate. He handled the
last such effort very well.
As with the structuring group, they would be responsible for
communicating with their constituencies/regional organizations/SGs and
for coming to consensus.
The recommendation would then be subject to public review and then
subject to approval by both the GNSO Council and ALAC using their own
methods
This would take longer then board motion requested, but we could at
least give them a plan and a schedule. I figure it would take minimum
8 weeks from Time 0. If we act quickly, we could be ready for open
discussions in Mexico City, with the comment period ending a week
after that meeting. Allowing for a decsions shortly thereafter.
Thoughts?
Note: One possible objection is that this discussion is relevant only
to the NCSG and not to the rest of the GNSO community and thus there
is no role for the rest of the GNSO community or for the GNSO council
in this process. I can certainly see the logic of his view and
accept it if it is the predominant view in the council. I do,
however, feel obliged to make sure we have responded to the Board
motion, and hence the proposal and the discussion.
a.