[NCUC-DISCUSS] Fwd: [Gnso-coordination] Continuous improvement principles re GNSO & Council

Mueller, Milton L milton at gatech.edu
Mon Oct 7 17:58:23 CEST 2024 

Ben, thanks for initiating this.

I agree with you that number 4 can be problematic. What does it mean for a SO to be "accountable" externally? This should be changed to something like "adheres to ICANN's mission and fundamental bylaws." SOs are supposed to be representative organizations that develop policy. The constituencies within SOs are intended to represent, and be accountable to, specific stakeholder groups. To say that they are also accountable to everyone and anyone is either meaningless (impossible to measure), or something that can cause conflict among stakeholder groups (SGs), because one SG can claim that another SG is "not accountable" because it doesn't serve that other SG's interests. And since there is no effective standard for determining whether an organization is accountable to the entire world, this cannot do any good but could do harm; e.g., copyright and trademark holders might claim that GNSO is not "externally accountable" because it doesn't always pass policies favorable to trademark and copyright interests.

The GNSO and ICANN as a whole need to be working within the mission and bylaws, but it is too vague and potentially troublesome to claim that all SOs and SGs are accountable to a "wider community" and "the global Internet population." ICANN as a whole is supposed to be externally accountable to the global Internet population, but that accountability is expressed through the mechanisms and constraints of the mission and bylaws. It is more focused and meaningful to say that a SO should be accountable to its own stakeholders. The whole system of ICANN policymaking - not a single SO - is supposed to be accountable to the global Internet community.



Dr. Milton L Mueller

Georgia Institute of Technology

School of Public Policy

[cid:62c841c2-054f-4f1e-98b8-3421083a371f]




Dear NCUC members,
I would like input in deciding whether all these principles are appropriate. This request had been sent out previously however the emphasis is on number 4.

This is the question the GNSO participants in the Continuous Improvement Program Community Coordination Group (CIP-CCG) like to know. You can know more about  Continuous Improvement Program Community Coordination Group (CIP-CCG) can be found on this  link<https://community.icann.org/display/CIP> below




  1.  The SO, AC, or NomCom is fulfilling its purpose.


  1.  The structures of SO, AC, or NomCom are effective.


  2.  The operations of SO, AC, or NomCom are efficient.


  3.  The SO, AC, or NomCom is accountable internally to its stakeholders and substructures (where applicable), and externally to the wider ICANN community in benefit of the global Internet population.


  4.  The SO, AC, or NomCom collaborates to further the mission of ICANN.




---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Chris Disspain via Gnso-coordination <gnso-coordination at icann.org<mailto:gnso-coordination at icann.org>>
Date: Wed, Sep 25, 2024 at 11:14 AM
Subject: [Gnso-coordination] Continuous improvement principles re GNSO & Council
To: <gnso-coordination at icann.org<mailto:gnso-coordination at icann.org>>


Hello All,

As previously discussed, our job as the GNSO SG reps to the Continuous Improvement CCG is to agree a set of principles that will apply to the GNSO and GNSO Council’s continuous improvement efforts.

The current principles from the draft CIP CCG document are below. Bearing in mind that the GNSO CCOICI will be the group that develops the criteria that sit under the principles and that, whilst not essential, it would be optimal if the overarching principles were the same for all SOs and ACs, can we live with these and if not, what amendments would we like to see?

It would be great to hear back from everyone by next Tuesday 1st October so we can feed our comments into the next CIP meeting on 2nd.


  1.  The SO, AC, or NomCom is fulfilling its purpose.


  1.  The structures of SO, AC, or NomCom are effective.

  2.  The operations of SO, AC, or NomCom are efficient.

  3.  The SO, AC, or NomCom is accountable internally to its stakeholders and substructures (where applicable), and externally to the wider ICANN community in benefit of the global Internet population.

  4.  The SO, AC, or NomCom collaborates to further the mission of ICANN.

Cheers,

Chris
_______________________________________________
Gnso-coordination mailing list -- gnso-coordination at icann.org<mailto:gnso-coordination at icann.org>
To unsubscribe send an email to gnso-coordination-leave at icann.org<mailto:gnso-coordination-leave at icann.org>

________________________________
From: Kathy Kleiman <Kathy at KathyKleiman.com>
Sent: Monday, October 7, 2024 9:30 AM
To: Mueller, Milton L <milton at GATECH.EDU>
Subject: Fwd: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Fwd: [Gnso-coordination] Continuous improvement principles re GNSO & Council


Hi Milton,

You are the expert in these areas. Thoughts welcome!

Best, Kathy


-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject:        [NCUC-DISCUSS] Fwd: [Gnso-coordination] Continuous improvement principles re GNSO & Council
Date:   Mon, 7 Oct 2024 08:44:51 +0200
From:   Benjamin Akinmoyeje <benakin at gmail.com><mailto:benakin at gmail.com>
To:     NCUC-discuss <ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org><mailto:ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>


Dear NCUC members,
I would like input in deciding whether all these principles are appropriate. This request had been sent out previously however the emphasis is on number 4.

This is the question the GNSO participants in the Continuous Improvement Program Community Coordination Group (CIP-CCG) like to know. You can know more about  Continuous Improvement Program Community Coordination Group (CIP-CCG) can be found on this  link<https://community.icann.org/display/CIP> below




  1.  The SO, AC, or NomCom is fulfilling its purpose.


  1.  The structures of SO, AC, or NomCom are effective.


  2.  The operations of SO, AC, or NomCom are efficient.


  3.  The SO, AC, or NomCom is accountable internally to its stakeholders and substructures (where applicable), and externally to the wider ICANN community in benefit of the global Internet population.


  4.  The SO, AC, or NomCom collaborates to further the mission of ICANN.




---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Chris Disspain via Gnso-coordination <gnso-coordination at icann.org<mailto:gnso-coordination at icann.org>>
Date: Wed, Sep 25, 2024 at 11:14 AM
Subject: [Gnso-coordination] Continuous improvement principles re GNSO & Council
To: <gnso-coordination at icann.org<mailto:gnso-coordination at icann.org>>


Hello All,

As previously discussed, our job as the GNSO SG reps to the Continuous Improvement CCG is to agree a set of principles that will apply to the GNSO and GNSO Council’s continuous improvement efforts.

The current principles from the draft CIP CCG document are below. Bearing in mind that the GNSO CCOICI will be the group that develops the criteria that sit under the principles and that, whilst not essential, it would be optimal if the overarching principles were the same for all SOs and ACs, can we live with these and if not, what amendments would we like to see?

It would be great to hear back from everyone by next Tuesday 1st October so we can feed our comments into the next CIP meeting on 2nd.


  1.  The SO, AC, or NomCom is fulfilling its purpose.


  1.  The structures of SO, AC, or NomCom are effective.

  2.  The operations of SO, AC, or NomCom are efficient.

  3.  The SO, AC, or NomCom is accountable internally to its stakeholders and substructures (where applicable), and externally to the wider ICANN community in benefit of the global Internet population.

  4.  The SO, AC, or NomCom collaborates to further the mission of ICANN.

Cheers,

Chris
_______________________________________________
Gnso-coordination mailing list -- gnso-coordination at icann.org<mailto:gnso-coordination at icann.org>
To unsubscribe send an email to gnso-coordination-leave at icann.org<mailto:gnso-coordination-leave at icann.org>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20241007/66fe3d1a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Outlook-rymjrqzh
Type: image/jpg
Size: 6749 bytes
Desc: Outlook-rymjrqzh
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20241007/66fe3d1a/attachment.jpg>

More information about the Ncuc-discuss mailing list