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

[John Berard <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I don't disagree but I don't want to lose the opportunity for a lack of 
initiation!

The weekend sessions are for all the GNSO so we could put it on the agenda then.

Berard

Sent from my iPhone

> On Feb 26, 2014, at 12:13 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> 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.)
>