[council] FW: suggestion for the upcoming Council meeting/re Staff guests

["Marilyn Cade" <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Council Chair

 Thanks very much for the Council Agenda. 

I see two areas where it is going to be important to have ICANN senior
staff/additional resources available to the Council for the upcoming call,
and ask that you extend invitations to them to join the Council call,  if
this is not already the case. 

First, in reviewing the Minutes from our last Council call, there was a
request for assistance/additional work to the Assistant General Counsel that
were initially accepted, with several updates along the way by staff that
the materials were under development, delayed, but forthcoming, etc., and
then finally, it was announced to Council after the Council call, by email
that the requested support materials were not to be supplied. Regrettably,
on the Council call, there was no indication by staff of this decision, so
that Council might have modified its work request in an informed manner.  I
am not commenting on the decision not to provide the requested document, but
the communication and collegiality needed to problem solve with Council on
what can be provided.  I know that we are ever evolving and improving our
working interactions. Thus, as I view the  Council and the staff as partners
in support of policy development, I would suggest that improvements in
timeliness and responsiveness in keeping Council up to date that a requested
work item will not be provided could become a common and shared objective
for our future work together.  Having made that statement, nevertheless,
given that we are discussing the PDPs, and the progression of work in
particular on PDP Feb 06, I would appreciate having the Assistant General
Counsel join the call to be available to support the discussion.

Secondly, as we are discussing the GNSO Review  as an agenda item,  let me
thank you  for putting the topic of progressing the broader GNSO involvement
in the GNSO review on the agenda. This deserves some thoughtful discussion
and probably a further discussion on Sunday, in Sao Paolo, of the Council.
It will be helpful to hear an update from Denise Michel, to launch this
discussion on our next Council call. 

While I see some enthusiasm from some constituency reps to start voting on
piecemeal parts of the LSE review, I recall form the conf. call briefings,
and from the Board that the LSE Review is one input, and that broader inputs
from the community and from the Constituencies are needed to have informed
consideration about evolution and improvements in the GNSO.  Thus, I am not
in favor of voting  on piecemeal items.  I am aware of the long standing
work items from the Council review that need to be taken into account, along
with the LSE independent review.  I'd like us to have a rationalized
document that brings the results of both 'reviews' into alignment. Perhaps
Denise can  task her team to provide such a resource, ahead of the Council
call, as a resource document. 

I take note of the comments from some that there are members of the Council
or Constituencies who are afraid that others are afraid of change, or will
resist change for personal reasons.  I assume we could all have that
suspicion of each other, of others in other SOs, or even of Board members or
Staff. However, I want to have a different vision:  I have faith that
everyone who works at ICANN cares deeply about its success, however they
define success from their own view of the 'elephant', taking note of the
parable of the blind men and the elephant encounter.  I note long hours of
volunteering, hard work to examine issues, and even personal funding of
travel to ICANN meetings by so many in the community of stakeholders, both
within the Constituencies and beyond, in the At Large, Board, and in other
SOs.  

I am looking forward to hearing from Denise what the progress is on
development of  ideas on a balanced process can be developed to take into
account input from the presently involved, from some expertise not yet
engaged, from Board members, and even from the GAC and other SOs, that can
inform improvements and changes within this SO as is appropriate to support
its role in ICANN and the continuing changes and challenges of ICANN's
success. It may be that there is a useful cross SO process of inputs and
idea generation as well. 

So, as one Councilor, I'd like to hear from Denise what proposed approaches
might be, and discuss rationally and professionally, from the perspective of
councilors, some ideas. I take note that the constituencies also often have
elected officers, and that it would be inappropriate to supersede
discussions within constituencies that can involve their members and
officers. Thus, I suspect that this is not the sole discussion that is
needed, and would welcome hearing how or what ideas exist to have engagement
across the SO as a whole. 

Finally, can we move this topic up on the agenda, since it is of
considerable interest and importance. 

Best regards, 

Marilyn Cade, BC Councilor