Discussion Questions

GNSO FUTURES DISCUSSION GROUP QUESTIONS

(as first shared during the 2016 NCPH Intersessional Meeting in Los Angeles, California)

1. What are the 3 key issues facing ICANN?
2. Is the current GNSO structure broken to the degree that it requires urgent attention?
3. What are the key drivers for change?
   1. lack of balanced representation?
   2. lack of balanced voting arrangements?
   3. lack of efficiency and effectiveness?
   4. stove pipe approach to policy development?
4. Could we fix the current problems within the two House bi-cameral structure?
5. Could we fix the current problems by restructuring the NCPH or the CSG/NCSG?
6. Would stricter adherence to BGC 7 - "The Council should transition from being a legislative body to a strategic manager overseeing policy development", assist in resolving many issues?
7. What does that mean for the role of Working Groups?
8. If the need for formal voting were reduced, would that alleviate some of the problems?
   1. Is that a realistic goal, how could it be achieved?
9. Would the move towards ‘strategic management’ support dispensing with the two House approach?
10. Would using an increasing number of CCWGs assist (noting many issues require the GNSO to appoint reps to CCWGs)?
11. Does the current limitation on GNSO appointments to CCWG’s allow all parties equal representation?
    1. If not can that be fixed within the CCWG structures?
    2. Are there better ways of achieving that?
12. Will a reform of the GNSO achieve the best answer for ICANN or is timely to undertake a review of the whole ICANN structure and its working methods/relationships, including the role of the AC’s and GAC in policy development? 
    1. Is now the time for this?
    2. What would that mean for the IANA transition?
    3. The need for By-law changes?
13. Is it preferable to focus on each part of ICANN separately or promote a ‘big bang’ approach that would take longer and probably face stronger opposition?