RE: [council] Joint Meeting Topics for Brussels

[Adrian Kinderis <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

And of course I meant the vocal minority... hehehe!

Adrian Kinderis


-----Original Message-----
From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Saturday, 22 May 2010 12:26 AM
To: Adrian Kinderis; Bruce Tonkin; GNSO Council
Subject: RE: [council] Joint Meeting Topics for Brussels

Please ignore my earlier question about what we would survey Adrian.
The following answers my question.  Any volunteers to take a first crack
at a survey that we can discuss on the list?

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-
> council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Adrian Kinderis
> Sent: Friday, May 21, 2010 9:38 AM
> To: Bruce Tonkin; GNSO Council
> Subject: RE: [council] Joint Meeting Topics for Brussels
> 
> 
> Thanks Bruce. This is helpful.
> 
> I like to see a way that we can move away from anecdotal opinions
> towards firm requests from the Board members as to their want/ need to
> meet with the GNSO. Is there a way that we could actually survey them
> with a list of options and ensure we get the right mix of engagement?
> 
> There is a danger that we are catering for the vocal majority.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> 
> Adrian Kinderis
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-
> council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin
> Sent: Friday, 21 May 2010 11:12 PM
> To: GNSO Council
> Subject: RE: [council] Joint Meeting Topics for Brussels
> 
> 
> Hello All,
> 
> 
> 
> >>  I think the approach you suggest for the Board dinner is
excellent.
> To me, these dinners are crucial for us and the opportunity for
> interaction with Board members they bring. I would hate to see them
> disappear, but would like to understand why some on the Board feel
they
> should go.
> 
> 
> Well here are some issues that get raised:
> 
> - the dinners are at the end of a long day of workshops/meetings - so
> some members are too tired to give important matters appropriate
> attention
> 
> - it is not always clear what the objective is - a general discussion
> about topics, a social event, discussion about a specific issues that
> the Board will be making a decision on that week?
> 
> - if the process is working properly - the Board will simply be
> endorsing the recommendations from the Council that have consensus
> support and should not be getting into the detail of particular policy
> matters.  If there is disagreement amongst the parties in the GNSO -
> the
> GNSO should work it out together - not try to get the Board to take
> sides.
> 
> There are some that would prefer a more formal meeting - not
> aligned with a breakfast/lunch or dinner - where there are materials
> provided in advance and the Board members can ask questions about the
> particular issue.
> 
> 
> Personally I think a mixture of formal and informal can work.  e.g A
> period of time for a structured discussion with documents provided in
> advance, and the ability for the Board to ask questions on the
> documents.   An informal eating occasion can then follow that is
> perhaps
> optional for the participants to attend to get a better understanding
> of
> the issues.    This structure used to work quite well when we were
> doing
> the new gTLD policy development - the days were spent on policy
> discussions, and the dinners were an opportunity to break down some
> barriers in the discussions with no formal agenda, that often led to
> better results the following day.
> 
> Regards,
> Bruce Tonkin
> 
>