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

[Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi John,

I don’t think any of this is a bad idea at all, and would like to (for my part) 
encourage community participation throughout all SOs and ACs.

Having said that, I’m willing to stick my neck out and be the, so far, sole 
person on this list to go ahead and say that a GNSO Council motion to get this 
particular ball rolling is not a good idea. I find all the ad-hoc processes 
(and I do mean all of them) going on to be a growing matter of concern, but 
don’t believe that Council is the right place to get a performance review 
started. When and if any ad-hoc group’s work starts to mess with the GNSO’s PDP 
as spelled out in the PDP Manual, the GNSO WG Guidelines and ICANN’s by-laws…, 
then sure…, that will be the time for us to push back.

In the meantime, I suggest that if our SGs and constituencies are in favour of 
taking this up, that it be initiated somewhere else (like the SO/AC leadership 
list), and not by a formal GNSO Council motion.

Just my thoughts.

Thanks.

Amr

On Feb 25, 2014, at 12:56 AM, john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

> All,
>  
> I am beginning to hear support for this idea from the GNSO more broadly and 
> the CSG in particular.  How can we start the ball rolling so that all can 
> comment?
>  
> Shall we consider a motion to seek community input on the evolution of the 
> policy making process in the last two years, with emphasis on new management?
>  
> Shall we ask the heads of the GNSO constituencies and stakeholder groups to 
> take on the task?
>  
> What are the other ways to initiate this exercise?
>  
> Berard
>  
> --------- Original Message ---------
> Subject: Re: Re: Re: [council] Crowdsourcing a bi-ennial performance review 
> of the ICANN CEO
> From: "Maria Farrell" <maria.farrell@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date: 2/24/14 7:50 am
> To: "John Berard" <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "Mike O'Connor" 
> <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Council" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> Hi John,
> 
> I take it back. You were not merely right, but prescient: Board confirms: 
> ICANN seeks non-US HQ
> <http://domainincite.com/15837-board-confirms-icann-seeks-non-us-hq>  And yet 
> another bunch of strategy panels, composed only of Board members.
> FYI I'm sanguine about globalisation and agree with Fadi's overall direction, 
> but can't help wondering what kind of bottom-up multi-stakeholder process led 
> to last week's decision. 
> 
> So on reflection I think it's not actually a bad idea to think about some 
> sort feedback mechanism. As you say, Council's role is being taken over and I 
> believe we should guard against that not in a territorial way but because 
> there needs to be concerted action to preserve the multistakeholder model. 
> Happy to discuss further, m
> 
> 
> On 21 February 2014 16:20, <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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.)