<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [council] 2nd topic for joint Board/GNSO dinner
What if we broaden the topic some by focusing on sustaining the volunteer model
in the long term?
Chuck
________________________________
From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Saturday, February 20, 2010 6:38 AM
To: Stéphane Van Gelder
Cc: Gomes, Chuck; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [council] 2nd topic for joint Board/GNSO dinner
I understood Stéphane's suggestion to be for a sort of meta-reflection
on the whole model rather than another discussion of prioritization. Stated at
this level of abstraction, one can imagine ways in which it could be a useful
and illuminating dialogue but also ways in which it could be unproductive.
Maybe it would help to specify the possible content a little more?
I'm inclined to think it's worth doing but would like more sense of the
likely direction.
Thanks,
Bill
On Feb 19, 2010, at 5:59 PM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
I know what you mean, but I don't see this as solely a
prioritization problem. Sure that will help, but even if we do prioritize,
we're still all spending most of our time working for ICANN and that is looking
like it will only get worse. How long can the organisation hold if that's the
case?
If the question is too contentious, let's leave it aside. But
in that case, we still need to come up with a second topic.
Stéphane
Le 19 févr. 2010 à 14:49, Gomes, Chuck a écrit :
If others want this topic, that is fine. But I am not
sure it is one well suited for the Board because it is one that we need to work
and we are.
Chuck
----- Original Message -----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: GNSO Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Fri Feb 19 07:40:13 2010
Subject: [council] 2nd topic for joint Board/GNSO dinner
I would like to propose a 2nd topic for the Board
dinner (I believe the custom initiated by Avri was to have 2 topics).
As we saw yesterday from our discussions during the
Council meeting, there is a danger of staff being overloaded by the current
workload. And as I pointed out, my worry is more for us volunteers that have to
balance an extremely demanding ICANN workload, for which we are neither paid
nor compensated in any way, with our real lives and jobs. So I guess there
comes a point where the question must be asked: is a system based on so much
volunteer involvement viable in the long run, and if we want to keep the system
as is (with the obvious benefits of being truly multi stakeholder), what
solutions are there to make it viable (for example, more staff as Mike
suggested yesterday)?
Thoughts?
Stéphane
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|