RE: [council] Meeting Protocol for Brussels and beyond...

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Adrian,

 

I have intentionally been delaying commenting on this subject for at least two 
reasons: 1) I first wanted to make sure I could speak on behalf of the RySG 
membership that I represent and not just share personal thoughts, so I raised 
the issue on the RySG list and have been watching the discussion there; 2) I 
also wanted to watch the Council discussion for awhile to get a sense of what 
various Councilors thought about this subject before I commented in my role as 
Chair.

 

There has been quite a bit of discussion on the RySG list and it has been very 
consistent.  RySG members are opposed to closing off the meetings and not 
allowing observers to participate.  At the same time they recognize the need 
for good management of open sessions and support steps in that regard such as 
Council seating arrangements, name tags, etc.

 

It might be helpful to look at some history regarding open meetings.  I think 
the new gTLD PDP serves as an important element of GNSO history in this regard. 
 Before I was even on the Council, it was decided to use the Council as a Whole 
approach instead of forming a Task Force but to do that in a way that allowed 
broader participation than just Councilors.  Bruce as Chair of the Council led 
the PDP effort and from beginning to end, over a span of more than 1 ½ years, 
participants involved Councilors and others who were willing to commit the 
time.  We had a lot of in-person meetings including long sessions on weekends 
in conjunction with ICANN International meetings and, at all of those sessions, 
attendance and participation were open to everyone who showed up.  Moreover, 
even though we were tackling one of the toughest tasks ever, we succeeded in 
producing supermajority recommendations.  The results were not perfect and we 
are still working on their implementation today, but it really was a huge 
accomplishment.  Bruce, and toward the end when Bruce joined the Board, Avri, 
are to be commended for their excellent leadership and all of the community 
participants, Councilors and non-Councilors, are to be complimented as well.

 

I believe it was during the new gTLD PDP that the trend toward open WG sessions 
was expanded to include nearly all GNSO meetings on the weekend.   And in my 
personal opinion as well as the view of the RySG, that has worked very well.  
It has not been without challenges and certainly can be improved, but it fits 
the bottom-up process that we are supposed to follow very well.  It also meets 
the Board recommendation that the GNSO Council should not be a legislative body.

 

Another point that is important is this: From the time that weekend working 
sessions were started until now, it was always made clear that these were not 
official Council meetings and that no business would be directly done.  We 
always reserved business for the Open Council Meetings on Wednesdays or for our 
regular teleconference meetings.

 

I believe that two people on the Council have supported Adrian's suggestion for 
making the weekend working sessions more closed: Adrian and Mike.  (If others 
have done so, I apologise and note that it is still early for me and I have not 
read all my email today.)  Another Board recommendation is that the GNSO 
Council should improve its representativeness of its stakeholders.  In light of 
that, I would like to ask Adrian and Mike and any others who have expressed 
views on this issue, regardless of the views, to answer this question: Do the 
positions you have communicated represent the views of your Stakeholder Groups 
or are they primarily your personal views?  Besides the representativeness 
concern, I ask this question because over the years I have observed excellent 
contributions from non-Councilors from every Stakeholder Group and Constituency 
including lots of contributions from members of the RrSG and CBUC.  I think it 
would have been a loss if those had not been allowed in the process.

 

Finally, let me suggest a word of caution.  Each of us as Councilors has our 
own personal, business and/or professional interests with regard to GNSO work, 
otherwise we probably would not volunteer so much time.  That is as it should 
be but I think we need to be careful that we are not perceived to be using our 
Councilor role as a platform for promoting those interests.  I am not 
suggesting that anyone is, but I do believe that in taking a stance of making 
the GNSO working sessions more closed, some may perceive us that way and we may 
be seen as elevating ourselves above others in the community who also have 
their own personal, business and professional interests, just because we are 
Councilors.

 

I apologise for such a long message.  Speaking in my role as Chair, I recommend 
that we continue to not only allow open participation in our weekend working 
sessions but that we encourage it but that we do so in a way that is well 
managed and effective.  And I commit myself as Chair to provide the leadership 
needed to make that happen with help from all of you.  As first steps in that 
regard, I would like to ask Glen to prepare 2-sided name tags for all 
Councilors and participating Staff members for our meetings in Brussels and I 
along with help from Glen, Stéphane and Olga will do our best to make sure that 
there is room for all Councilors at tables where we and other participants can 
readily see and converse with one another and observers.

 

Thanks to everyone for the excellent dialog on this topic.

 

Chuck

 

From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Adrian Kinderis
Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2010 7:58 AM
To: KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx; stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx; 
william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [council] Meeting Protocol for Brussels and beyond...

 

Wolf,

 

That must have worked well at a conference with 20% the usual participation 
level and no new DAG to bang on about...

 

I think it will be very different in Brussels. Hence my original email.

 

I would love to hear from our Chair and Vice chair on this (not you Stephane!).

 

Adrian Kinderis

 

From: KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2010 9:45 PM
To: stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx; william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: Adrian Kinderis; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: AW: [council] Meeting Protocol for Brussels and beyond...

 

Stéphane,

I personally felt comfortable the way you were managing the weekend sessions in 
Nairobi which means: councillors taking seats at the table and speaking first 
to the various topics. Time for open discussion was still available and seemed 
having been taken into schedule account. I would welcome to keep it this way.

 

 

Regards 
Wolf-Ulrich 

 

         

        
________________________________


        Von: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Im Auftrag von Stéphane Van Gelder
        Gesendet: Mittwoch, 2. Juni 2010 08:37
        An: William Drake
        Cc: Adrian Kinderis; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Council
        Betreff: Re: [council] Meeting Protocol for Brussels and beyond...

        Bill's summary is spot on as far as I can remember. In Nairobi, Adrian 
had pointed out the need to ensure Councillors get priority at our weekend 
sessions. As acting Chair at that meeting, I tried to do just that. My 
impression was that by allowing Councillors to speak first and then opening it 
to other members of the community, we were able to ensure that these sessions 
were productive for Councillors while still remaining open and useful for the 
larger community as well. 

         

        Stéphane

        Le 2 juin 2010 à 08:20, William Drake a écrit :

         

        Hi Adrian, 

         

        On Jun 2, 2010, at 2:24 AM, Adrian Kinderis wrote:

         

        I would like to suggest that there be no questions from the floor 
during these sessions.

         

        When we last had this conversation didn't we decide against draconian 

            measures that would preclude community participation (and were 
hence poorly 

            received by some) and for some intermediate steps like only 
Councilors at 

            the table, chair gives preference to Councilor comments and right 
sizes the 

            time for others, etc? If people think this has not worked 
sufficiently, 

            wouldn't it be possible to simply have an offline conversation with 
the most 

            relevant parties saying please respect the following ground rules, 
and to 

            reiterate these at the outset of meetings?

         

         

        On Jun 2, 2010, at 2:51 AM, Adrian Kinderis wrote:

         

        I'll shout an extra round at the bar on Saturday night to make up for 
it :)

         

        Hmm...didn't I hear something like this a few meetings ago, didn't 
materialize... :-)

         

        BTW, on the matter of after hour amusement, perhaps I'll pass along 
something I pointed out to NCSG, might be of interest to some here:

         

        
        On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 1:33 PM, William Drake
        <william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

        Hi

                 

                Just an FYI for people who will be attending ICANN Brussels, as 
with Paris two summers ago, this meeting overlaps with the annual Fete de la 
Musique held across France, Belgium, Switzerland, etc.  Just had a look at the 
program http://2010.fetedelamusique.be/recherches?tid=&tid_1=All&city=Bruxelles 
and inter alia Saturday night 19th Toots and the Maytals is playing in the park 
near the conference site.

         

        Bill