Re: [council] DRAFT/early thoughts on what a CEO performance review motion

["Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>]

hi John,

ok, here are some thoughts.

- “constituencies and stakeholder groups” are critters that only live inside 
the GNSO, which is where i got that internal view.  it seems to me a change to 
"ACs and SOs" would take us to a more inclusive “community” conversation 
direction.

- i’m all for blunt instruments, but as we’ve seen recently loosely defined 
projects can have a variety of unintended consequences.  i’d be fine with a 
motion to launch a *chartering* effort, but i’m edgy about launching the 
full-blown review with this little structure.  reminds me of some of the IG 
stuff that’s going on — launch the plane, then build the wings.  

- i’m not sure the leadership is the only, or good, source of rapporteurs for 
the effort.  again, a charter drafting group could lay a few lines down about 
who’s going to do what

- i think a carefully written charter would also reduce possible 
misunderstanding about why the effort is being undertaken.

so to restate — i’d find it easier to support a motion to launch a chartering 
exercise (pending review with the ISPCP), but i’m uncomfortable with a 
broadly-written motion to launch a review, as it reads right now.

m

On Feb 27, 2014, at 2:25 PM, john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

> Mikey, et. al.,
>  
> I think this is a perfect time for the community to offer its opinion of 
> Fadi's performance.  Come London, we will be two years into his stewardship.
>  
> The method has always been open to suggestion and the motion I offered is a 
> blunt instrument that will get the ball rolling.
>  
> The reference to the constituencies and stakeholder groups is to note that 
> this is a community wide activity, though the Council only has a role in the 
> GNSO
>  
> The intent is for some group of the leadership to serve as the recording 
> secretaries for the contributions; not to control the activity.  Somebody has 
> to read and summarize the stuff.
>  
> Finally, I don't see this as a battle, but a chance at a little 
> self-determination as the world inside ICANN begins to look like the world 
> outside.
>  
> Hope this helps.
>  
> Berard
>  
> --------- Original Message ---------
> Subject: Re: [council] DRAFT/early thoughts on what a CEO performance review 
> motion
> From: "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: 2/27/14 11:53 am
> To: "John Berard" <johnberard@xxxxxxx>
> Cc: "Klaus Stoll" <kdrstoll@xxxxxxxxx>, "John Berard" 
> <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Council" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> hi all,
>  
> sometimes i come up with an idea late at night that sounds killer clever — 
> and then the next morning i look at it in the light of day and realize that 
> if i really want to pull this idea off, it’s going to take a lot more 
> thinking and refinement before it’s ready.
>  
> immediate reactions:
>  
> - i’m uncomfortable with the “constituency and stakeholder leadership” phrase 
> — if it’s truly going to be reflective of the bottom-up process, the 
> participation ought to be open, just like a working group is open 
>  
> - if it’s going to be run like a working group, it ought to be chartered like 
> a working group — problem statement, scope, approach, deliverables, all that 
> jazz
>  
> - if it’s really going to be reflective of the whole community it ought to be 
> a cross-community working group and not contained by the edges of the GNSO
>  
> as i follow my nose down that chain of logic i find myself stepping back a 
> bit.  are we really ready to take this on?  are we really the right group?  
> is this really the best way to express our concerns?
>  
> is this the battle that’s most important to fight right now?  
>  
> mikey
>  
>  
> On Feb 27, 2014, at 1:20 PM, John Berard <johnberard@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> Klaus,
> 
> As I said, this is new ground and deserves the group's thinking.  Consider my 
> efforts merely the provocation.
> 
> Berard
>  
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Klaus Stoll <kdrstoll@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: john <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; council <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Thu, Feb 27, 2014 11:10 am
> Subject: Re: [council] DRAFT/early thoughts on what a CEO performance review 
> motion
> 
> Dear Berard, Dear All
> 
> Whereas, I am not necessarily opposed to the motion, I wonder if the GNSO is 
> the right place to move and develop it. As a newcomer to the GNSO Council, I 
> want to be clear if this is inside the pdp remit of the council.
> 
> Please advice!
> 
> Yours, Klaus
> 
> PS: Whereas I move, the motion should be filed under "clever ICANN CEO's 
> assassination attempts". :-) 
> 
>   On 2/27/2014 7:43 PM, john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> All,
> Does this get at the intent?  Suggestions are more than welcome as I think we 
> are breaking new ground here.  I apologize if the format is not perfect, but 
> if we crowdsource it, I think we can button it up.
> Cheers,
> Berard
> Whereas, Fadi Chehade was announced as the new CEO and President of ICANN at 
> the organization’s meeting in Prague in June 2012, and
> Whereas, in his first presentation to the ICANN community in Prague in June 
> 2012, he noted that “I am driven by building consensus.  It is the reason I 
> am here today. There is no other reason. I love doing this. Bringing 
> communities that on the face of it could never be brought together to agree 
> on common things is exactly what I strive to do,” and
> Whereas, as reported at the time he joined ICANN, “In selecting Chehade, 
> ICANN went with someone who isn't well known and isn't well versed in the 
> organization's core tasks — keeping the Internet address system running 
> smoothly,” and
> Whereas, in the two years of his term, the landscape of the Internet and role 
> played by ICANN has changed in ways equal only to the origin of the 
> organization, including significant budget and staff increases, and
> Whereas, in response to the expanded attention to the domain name system and 
> ICANN’s role in managing it, Chehade has championed changes in the policy 
> development process,
> Therefore, beginning on March 26, 2014 with the passage of this motion, and 
> continuing through the next ICANN public meeting in London in June 2014, the 
> community, under the leadership of a review committee comprised of the GNSO’s 
> constituency and stakeholder leadership, shall have the opportunity to offer 
> comment on the performance of the CEO.
>  
> 
> 
> PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: 
> OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)


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