Re: [council] 2nd topic for joint Board/GNSO dinner

[William Drake <william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I understood Stéphane's suggestion to be for a sort of meta-reflection on the 
whole model rather than another discussion of prioritization.  Stated at this 
level of abstraction, one can imagine ways in which it could be a useful and 
illuminating dialogue but also ways in which it could be unproductive.  Maybe 
it would help to specify the possible content a little more?

I'm inclined to think it's worth doing but would like more sense of the likely 
direction.

Thanks,

Bill



On Feb 19, 2010, at 5:59 PM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:

> I know what you mean, but I don't see this as solely a prioritization 
> problem. Sure that will help, but even if we do prioritize, we're still all 
> spending most of our time working for ICANN and that is looking like it will 
> only get worse. How long can the organisation hold if that's the case?
> 
> If the question is too contentious, let's leave it aside. But in that case, 
> we still need to come up with a second topic.
> 
> Stéphane
> 
> Le 19 févr. 2010 à 14:49, Gomes, Chuck a écrit :
> 
>> If others want this topic, that is fine.  But I am not sure it is one well 
>> suited for the Board because it is one that we need to work and we are. 
>> 
>> Chuck
>> 
>> 
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> To: GNSO Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Sent: Fri Feb 19 07:40:13 2010
>> Subject: [council] 2nd topic for joint Board/GNSO dinner
>> 
>> 
>> I would like to propose a 2nd topic for the Board dinner (I believe the 
>> custom initiated by Avri was to have 2 topics).
>> 
>> As we saw yesterday from our discussions during the Council meeting, there 
>> is a danger of staff being overloaded by the current workload. And as I 
>> pointed out, my worry is more for us volunteers that have to balance an 
>> extremely demanding ICANN workload, for which we are neither paid nor 
>> compensated in any way, with our real lives and jobs. So I guess there comes 
>> a point where the question must be asked: is a system based on so much 
>> volunteer involvement viable in the long run, and if we want to keep the 
>> system as is (with the obvious benefits of being truly multi stakeholder), 
>> what solutions are there to make it viable (for example, more staff as Mike 
>> suggested yesterday)?
>> 
>> Thoughts?
>> 
>> Stéphane
>> 
>