RE: [council] Joint Meeting Topics for Brussels

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I agree with Stephane for the most part. But actually, the dinners are a
meeting of three bodies - Council, Board, and Staff.

Council has numerous opportunities to interact with Staff, as does Staff
with the Board, at F2F meetings or virtully. I hope Staff will not take
this the wrong way, but it might be helpful if there were less Staff at
these dinners (not zero, just less). That would allow for more
interaction between Council and Board members, at the tables or
otherwise.

Clearly, time with the Board's will be in high demand at these meetings.
However, Council is responsible for managing the policy making process
of the largest, most active, and most prolific SO within ICANN.
Shouldn't making time for meaningful F2F interaction between these two
bodies be a priority?

I like Bruce's suggestion of a mix of formal/informal work. And we
should avoid topics that are more or less just an oppotunity for parties
on various sides of an issue to vent/air their arguments (VI, for
example). Topics should perhaps focus on issues related to how
Council/Board interact, issues/concerns Board/Council may have regarding
use/availability of Staff resources, budget for GNSO policy activities,
AoC issues, etc.


Tim 
 
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [council] Joint Meeting Topics for Brussels
From: Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, May 21, 2010 9:09 am
To: "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "GNSO Council" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>


We are talking about the interaction between 2 of ICANN's major
decision-making bodies.

I think it's important to keep sight of the usefulness of getting the
people from each body talking to each other.

Even when there's no formal agenda, this type of interaction helps make
organisations work.

Yes we can keep it formal, but when it's a social event it's often
easier for people to meet and get to know each other. That then
translates into real benefits for the organisation when it comes to
formal work sessions.

As a new councillor, I found the first Board dinner I attended helped
take away a lot of the awe and stress I felt at both learning the
Council and working with the Board. From informal conversations with
Board members, I found them to be much more approachable and in tune
with the everyday problems ICANN faces than I had thought. I would never
have gotten that in a more formal setting.

I think our joint dinner are an investment we all make to help oil the
internal workings of the organisation.

Stéphane

Le 21 mai 2010 à 15:11, Bruce Tonkin a écrit :

> 
> 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
> 
>