RE: Re: Re: [council] Crowdsourcing a bi-ennial performance review of the ICANN CEO

[john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Maria,
 
This is not so much about complaints (though it is clear that the policy 
responsibilities of the GNSO in general and its Council in particular are being 
squeezed by CEO-appointed strategy panels at the top and unmeasured 
crowdsourcing at the bottom) as it is an attempt to give the community the 
opportunity to offer its view of the path ICANN has taken in the last two years 
under Fadi's leadership.  There is some irony in using a crowdsourced model (as 
it is a contentious recommendation of the strategy panel on multi-stakeholder 
innovation), but it if is a good idea, it is a good idea.
 
When you consider last year's tumult over policy v. implementation, this year's 
Internet governance rallies (I note specifically that the upcoming meeting in 
Brazil has left the long & upstanding ICANN community members ccTLD managers 
feeling left out) and the expansion of strategy panels (first four, then five 
and now a bit of a blank check from the Board to the CEO), the Council has 
reason to ask for community input. 
 
Whether we call it a review of Fadi's performance or a review of how process 
has changed in the last two years is not relevant, but I see the two as 
one-in-the-same.
 
Even if no one hears what is said, I think we ought to ask.
 
I would be happy to offer a motion to that effect at the Singapore meeting so 
as to make it an official action (should it pass, of course!).
 
Cheers,
 
Berard
 
--------- Original Message --------- Subject: Re: Re: [council] Crowdsourcing a 
bi-ennial performance review of the ICANN CEO
From: "Maria Farrell" <maria.farrell@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: 2/21/14 2:06 am
To: "John Berard" <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>, 
"Council" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

  I think it's an interesting idea - but I also see the risk for it to turn 
into a free-for-all of national or interest group sections peeved at certain 
Internet governance developments. 


I didn't hear so many complaints from other NCPH side colleagues about 'growing 
executive influence over policy' during the TCMH debacle, so colour me curious 
about this initiative, willing to be convinced - subject to a fair methodology 
that won't be astro-turfed -  but also somewhat skeptical of the context and 
motivation. 
 
Maria


 On 20 February 2014 21:11, <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
  James,
 
Yes, we should include all, but the ball has to start rolling somewhere.  I 
figure we can do that.
 
Berard
 
--------- Original Message ---------  Subject: Re: [council] Crowdsourcing a 
bi-ennial performance review of the ICANN CEO
From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>
 Date: 2/20/14 1:01 pm
To: "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>, "John Berard" <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
 Cc: "Council" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

 Also think this is worth of discussion, but should include other SO/ACs in an 
effort to provide a “360” review.
 
J.
 
 
From: Mike O'Connor <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>
 Date: Thursday, February 20, 2014 at 13:35 
 To: John Berard <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
 Cc: GNSO Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
 Subject: Re: [council] Crowdsourcing a bi-ennial performance review of the 
ICANN CEO
 
hi John,  
i sense a certain irony in your reference to crowdsourcing, but i went ahead 
and circulated your proposal amongst the ISPCP - initial reactions are 
positive.  i personally think it's a great idea.
 
mikey
 

  On Feb 20, 2014, at 10:28 AM, john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

  All,
 
I think the next meeting of the ICANN, scheduled for London, marks two years of 
Fadi Chehade's term as the organization's President and CEO.  In light of the 
interest driven by the Strategy Panels in what is called crowd sourcing, I 
wonder if we should consider instigating a performance review of the executive 
using that method.
 
We can announce the initiative in Singapore and prepare a report for the London 
meeting.  The standing for the Council is the growing executive influence over 
policy, looking no further than the rise of appointed strategy panels in lieu 
of community-based working groups.
 
What is your view?
 
Cheers,
 
Berard

 
 

 

 
 PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: 
OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)