Draft Recommendation 27
That the GNSO establish and maintain a centralised publicly available list of members and individual participants of every Constituency and Stakeholder Group (with a link to the individual’s SOI where one is required and posted).
|Working Party (initial assessment of feasibility and usefulness):||CG - Accept as is.|
|Staff (initial assessment of feasibility and usefulness):|
MK: Accept as-is.
|Basis for Assessment:|
|Work in Progress:||Work underway supported by Digital Engagement Team (Chris Gift)|
|Expected Completion Date for Work in Progress:|
Public Comments Received
Recommendation 27 (Transparency): That the GNSO establish and maintain a centralised publicly available list of members and individual participants of every Constituency and Stakeholder Group (with a link to the individual’s SOI where one is required and posted).
gTLD Registries Stakeholder Group
(Not Sure) Accepting the need to establish and maintain such a list, it is the view of the ISPCP that this should be accommodated at the SG/C level rather than as a centralized GNSO list. Such an approach makes it easier to maintain and update.
If adopted would improve the transparency of the policy development process and promote greater confidence in the validity of adopted policies.
Laura Covington, J. Scott Evans, Marie Pattullo
The BC supports this recommendation. The BC already maintains a public list of its members – http://www.bizconst.org/members/
(It Depends) The IPC agrees that the publication of full lists of members is fundamental to principles of transparency and openness. Whilst we do not object to there being a centralized database of this information, provided that this information is readily available and can be easily located on the websites of the individual SGs and Cs we do not consider a central database to be essential. Indeed we believe there will be some risk of the centralized records being less up to date than the records of the individual SG and Cs, unless adequate resource is allocated. Any additional recordkeeping or transmittal burden on the SGs and Cs must be met by ICANN Secretariat staff and not SG/C volunteers.
There is no reason to require SoIs of members who are not elected/selected representatives of their groups, or members of GNSO WGs.
(Support) The ALAC fully supports this. For example, key information about every single At-Large Structure is made available online for all to access. We believe that Community accountability starts at the identification of member organisations and participants.
GNSO Working Session
It is incredibly complex at times to work out exactly who is speaking and who are they speaking on behalf of and where that’s coming from. Extending that out so that it also covers the constituency stakeholder groups and everything else seems like the logical extension of that. This has been some work done within ICANN senior staff about providing kind of a membership support services for constituencies and stakeholder groups. At the moment, things like the centralized member registry thing, that really doesn’t exist. So I mean you do end up in the situation where as chair of the registrars, I mean, I’m here as on GNSO at the moment for a variety of reasons. You would see people saying that they’re a member of Stakeholder Group X or Stakeholder Group Y, but you need to actually go back and check to see whether they are or not. So sometimes I’ve looked at the list of members on a working group and I’ve gone like, you know, who is this person. They’re saying they’re a member of a stakeholder group, but I can’t work out who they are. And that’s, you know, that can be a potential issue if they’re saying they’re representing a group when they aren’t.
I just wanted to try a little more light on those recommendations with respect to transparency support and training for the constituency. Yes, well like maybe just a little more elimination concerning maybe some gaps that you identified with respect to constituency, operational floor or training needs.