Site Map    |    Site Index    | 

Quick Links: Select A Link Below About ICANN Accountability and Review Accountability and Transparency Address Supporting Organization (ASO) Announcements Annual Report Articles of Incorporation At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) Blog Board Meeting Minutes Board of Directors Budget Bylaws Calendar of Events Committees - Other Committees - Advisory Committees - Board Committees - Past Contact Information Contracts Contractual Compliance Newsletter Contractual Compliance Program Corporate Documents Correspondence Country Code TLD Managers - Information for Country-Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO) Country-Code Top-Level Domain Agreements Country-Code Top-Level Domain Board Materials Country-Code Top-Level Domain Listings Current Topics Dashboard Documentary Information Disclosure Policy Documents Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policies Employment Opportunities Factsheets Fellowship Office Financial Information First-Time Visitors Former Directors Frequently Asked Questions GNSO Improvements Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Generic Top-Level Domain (gTLD) Program Generic Top-Level Domain (gTLDs) Life Cycle Generic Top-Level Domain Information (gTLDs) Global Partnerships Glossary Governmental Advisory Committee IANA Agreement IANA ccTLD Reports IANA ICANN Info IDN Glossary IPv6 Policy Independent Reviews of ICANN Structures InterNIC Internal Procedure for Conflicts with Privacy Law Internationalized Domain Names Links Litigation Documents Major Agreements Maps Meetings Mission Monthly Magazine Monthly Registry Reports News Newsletters & News Alerts Newsletters Archive Nominating Committee Ombudsman Operating Plan Organizational Chart PGP Keys Participate in ICANN Partnership Memorandums of Understanding Payments to ICANN Photos Planning Process Policy Area Policy Issue Briefs Policy Update Presentations President and CEO President's Strategy Committee Press Resources Public Comment Public Participation Site Publications RSS Feed Registrants Information Registrar Accreditation Agreement Amendments Registrar Accreditation Overview Registrar Advisories Registrar Agreements Registrar Complaints Registrar Data Escrow Program Registrar Information Registrar Problem - Get Help Registrars - Accredited Registry Agreements Registry Information Registry Listings Registry Monthly Reports Registry Services Evaluation Process Report Inaccurate Whois Information Resources Root Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC) Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) Speeches Sponsored Top-Level Domains Staff Strategic Plan Supporting Organizations Technical Liason Group Transfers Translations Transparency Travel Support Universal Acceptance of All Top-Level Domains Video Vint Cerf's Legacy Letter to ICANN Community Website Enhancement Whois Information Whois Search

Search:

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers

  |  Subscribe: Newsletters & News Alerts  |  ICANN Blog  |  Public Comment

• Home
• About
• Policy
• Current Topics
• Processes
• Documents
• Video
• Contact

^ Home

> Meetings

What it is: This public forum, which is organized by the Board Governance Committee and is open to all interested individuals, provides the broad community with an opportunity for an in-depth discussion about improving the GNSO's structures and processes.

Why it's important: This forum enables stakeholders to provide input on fundamental changes to the GNSO that were recommended by the GNSO independent reviewer (the London School of Economics), as well as to offer their own advice on how this critical policy development body can be improved.

Who should attend: All individuals interested in how ICANN makes decisions that affect gTLDs.

---

The ICANN Board Governance Committee is hosting a public forum on Monday, 26 March, 16:00 - 18:00, to discuss "GNSO Improvements."

ICANN received an independent review of the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) prepared by the London School of Economics (LSE). This review, along with previous reviews and public input, will be used to inform ICANN's effort to develop detailed proposals for improving the GNSO's structures and processes. This independent review of the GNSO is the first in a series of such reviews mandated in ICANN's bylaws as part of ICANN's ongoing commitment to evolve and improve its operations. As part of the Board's ongoing efforts to work with the ICANN community to consider the GNSO review, the Board Governance Committee (BGC) is hosting Monday's forum to encourage additional public input and discussion. While input on all elements of the GNSO and the LSE review report are open for comment at the forum, the Committee is particularly interested in hearing your views on the GNSO review recommendations listed below. (Note that questions raised about the recommendations listed below are included to prompt thought and discussion, and are not intended to represent the views of the BGC or its members).

Individuals and stakeholder groups are encouraged to submit views on these recommendations in advance of the forum to <gnso-improvements@icann.org>. Authors of emailed input will be given an opportunity to present their views prior to opening the forum to comments from the floor.

• Structural Changes to GNSO Constituencies -- LSE recommendation 19. Simplify the GNSO constituency structure in order to respond to rapid changes in the Internet, including by substituting 3 larger constituency groups representing Registration interests, Business, and Civil Society; LSE recommendation 18. Create a category of 'Associate Stakeholder' to establish a pool of available external expertise.
• Which entities and individuals should participate in the GNSO process, and what will motivate them to want to join? The six current groups are the natural point to begin discussion. Do they represent the right groups? Are they over or under inclusive? The Bylaws acknowledge that the optimal groupings may be different than the ones that now exist, and that there is no "magic number." The LSE points out several problems with the current structure and suggests the substitution of three larger constituencies — is this the right answer?
• Is it feasible to create a roster of readily available experts who can assist with task forces and other aspects of the PDP?
• What other questions and approaches should the BGC explore regarding these two LSE recommendations?

• Changes to the Policy Development Process -- LSE recommendation 17. Make greater use of task forces [in policy development processes]; LSE recommendation 23. Revise and move PDP operational provisions from Bylaws to more flexible GNSO 'Rules of Procedures.'
• Could greater use of task forces, particularly proposals to attract more expertise and geographical diversity, help the policy development process? Would limiting the number of Councilors on any task force enable the Council to focus more on the task of managing PDPs, rather than the substantive aspects of formulating specific policies? Would this change increase the number of people willing to serve on the Council?
• There seems to be widespread agreement that the Bylaws are overly prescriptive, and the prescribed PDP steps and timelines have not captured the requirements of a policy development process. Should the PDP principles be preserved in the Bylaws while placing more procedural elements in GNSO "rules of procedure'? Do you have specific suggestions for how the PDP should be revised?
• What other questions and approaches should the BGC explore regarding these two LSE recommendations?

• Changes to Voting and Representation -- LSE recommendation 21. Increase the threshold for establishing consensus to 75% and abolish weighted voting; LSE recommendation 20. Make the Council smaller (16 members suggested).

• How would raising the consensus threshold and abolishing weighted voting advance the role of the GNSO? The Bylaws task the GNSO with both "developing and recommending" gTLD policies to the Board.
• Weighted voting, in particular, was instituted as part of ICANN's Evolution and Reform Process to address the different effect policies have on contracted versus non-contracted constituencies. Has this approach contributed to, or hampered, effective policy development?
• What other questions and approaches should the BGC explore regarding these two LSE recommendations?

Links

• Independent review of the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) prepared by the London School of Economics (LSE)
• Archive of public comments on the independent GNSO review
• ICANN Board Governance Committee
• Independent Reviews of ICANN Structures