Re: [council] Joint Meeting Topics for Brussels

[William Drake <william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Terry,

I think it'd be more than interesting to talk with boardies about what's going 
on in the larger international political environment. That includes the ITU 
stuff, e.g. the October Plenipotentiary Conference in Guadalajara, for which 
there are various proposals circulating that could directly impact ICANN and 
its nexus.  But it goes beyond this, as demonstrated by some of the government 
statements last week in Geneva at the annual UN CSTD meeting (including the 
reactions to Nick Thorne's comments).  While I sat with Rod at the Nairobi 
dinner, which was helpful, I still don't have a clear take on how the 
leadership is thinking about and positioning viz. these developments.  And 
while we tried to start a conversation along these lines at the Nairobi 
Council-GAC meeting, the less than 30 minutes available were quickly consumed 
by general statements from a few OECD governments, rather than real engagement. 
So trying to bridge a little the gap between the external debate on ICANN and 
ICANN's internal discussions could be highly useful, methinks...

Best,

Bill



On May 21, 2010, at 11:30 PM, Terry L Davis, P.E. wrote:

> 
> Stephane
> 
> Likewise!  And I'm probably not favor a formal agenda for discussions
> either.  
> 
> What might be interesting and could likely be interesting for most folks
> would be discussions about ICANN and Internet governance directions. I
> suspect the next few years will be both challenging and pivotal for the
> Internet as we know it; you could even in toss the recent ITU initiatives.
> 
> Take care
> Terry 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder
> Sent: Friday, May 21, 2010 12:22 PM
> To: Rodin Johnston, Rita
> Cc: 'Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx'; 'council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx'
> Subject: Re: [council] Joint Meeting Topics for Brussels
> 
> 
> Good to know that the majority of the Board remains in favour of the
> dinners.
> 
> Thanks Rita.
> 
> Stéphane
> 
> Le 21 mai 2010 à 16:34, Rodin Johnston, Rita a écrit :
> 
>> Stephane and all -
>> 
>> I very much agree with this sentiment and believe the majority of the
> board does as well.  I'm not sure where this notion began, but bruce and I
> are in dublin and can discuss with peter. I would not be in favor of
> discontinuing dinner unless a better option for informal discussions was
> substituted. Thanks
>> 
>> 
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> To: Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: GNSO Council <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Sent: Fri May 21 10:09:27 2010
>> Subject: Re: [council] Joint Meeting Topics for Brussels
>> 
>> 
>> 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
>>> 
>>>