Question from the Board and our answer

[Ken Herman]

Thanks Farzaneh.

 

My feeling is that it is important to emphasize that even though we are open to new ideas, there are some basics that any process needs to adhere to.

 

I quickly drafted the following which maybe can help further the discussion. I tried to integrate the point that I have heard and that Stephanie just made.

 

Ken

 

 

The NCSG welcomes efforts by the board to identify innovative approaches to improving the policy-making process. We understand that it can be useful to try different ways to overcome some of the bottlenecks that frequently inhibit progress on the many important issues we face. Nevertheless, as the board chair today reminded us, inclusivity and diversity are a foundational principle of ICANN, and the existing policy-making structure is designed to protect that. We are concerned that some of the recent forays into “agile approaches” have not always respected the foundational concepts of balanced representation and transparency, including full disclosure of participant’s interests and open meetings. We are open to new ideas, as long as they respect these basic principles and lead back to the established mechanisms at the core of ICANN’s multistakeholder decision-making process. The NCSG will strongly resist any effort to undermine the policy-making mechanisms articulated in the bylaws. We observe that by refraining from recent practices of re-opening settled decisions and policy recommendations and adding layers of implementation and enforcement processes, such as ODAs, will drive policy-making to conclusions. 

 

 

From: NCSG-Discuss <NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU> On Behalf Of farzaneh badii
Sent: Monday, March 13, 2023 9:19 AM
To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
Subject: Question from the Board and our answer

 

All,

We have an NCSG board meeting today and the Board is asking a peculiar question:

 

“The ICANN Board would like to explore how to
combine the efficiencies of an agile approach to problem solving, like
the Council’s small teams, with the need for accountability and
transparency, to make progress on policy conversations. When would such
an approach be most appropriate and how can we ensure that it does not
circumvent required steps in a policy development process? »

 

We discussed this during the NCSG meeting yesterday. In a nutshell we don't think an "agile approach" that is not predicted in the bylaws is appropriate at all. If the Board wants to make the processes more efficient and effective, they can refrain from re-opening the issues and rehashing the policy recommendations that we make in policy development processes. Also adding layers and layers of implementation and enforcement processes such as ODAs don't help with efficiency. Unfortunately the push for efficiency and the board desire to re-open issues or be creative in resolving unsolved matters has led to creating processes that are ad hoc and might not be in accordance with the bylaws. One such group that the board created and we objected to is the group on closed generics. (we need to discuss this point)

 

this is my opinion which we can discuss:

The Council's small teams are not "agile processes". They are internal processes that don't violate the bylaws because the small teams don't make the decision, they just lay the groundwork for decision-making at the council level and they have to discuss all the issues with the council. 

 

Please weigh in so that we can wrap it up by 3 PM. Also what's with the obsession with the word "agile". Somebody got an MBA recently and went to a WEF meeting?

 

 

 

 

Farzaneh 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20230313/ae8c8ea8/attachment.htm>