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

["Mary Wong" <MWong@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks to Chuck, Stephane and Olga for their commitment and comments - I
hope you three know that the rest of us appreciate how difficult it can
be to conduct these working sessions in an efficient manner while
ensuring adequate discussion time and full representative
participation!
 
Like others, I think that establishing the following baseline rules for
these will be critical, not just for Brussels but as an ongoing
practice: (1) seating Councillors at the table; (2) using the name
cards/placards; (3) having the particular chairperson of that session
announce the guidelines for discussion (as Olga mentioned) and firmly
managing them (very firmly in the case of "repeat offenders"); and (4)
adopting a rule that Councillors ought generally to be able to speak
first.
 
And just to add to what colleagues from NCSG, RySG and RrSG have said -
there is now a difference between a Council "meeting" and a "working
session" (the latter being much more open). As such, the latter
sessions, in particular, necessarily mean that members of the community
should not only be able to attend, but also to meaningfully participate
- and here I stress the word "meaningfully".
 
The tension I've seen is not between our views as to whether we are
"representative" or more "participatory" Councillors; it is the precious
little time that everyone (Council and community alike) has for - as
Adrian puts it - direct access to ICANN staff. That situation is often
made worse by rambling, personal, inappropriate and/or irrelevant
questions/comments, or participants (including those perhaps more
familiar with ICANN-land, its history, processes and long-term
participants) who either dominate the discussions or exploit the
advantage, during the working sessions, to speak directly to ICANN
staff.
 
To my mind, it falls (unfortunately, sorry!) to our Chair and
Vice-Chairs to manage these sessions as they've committed to doing, so
as to minimize disruptions and ensure that both Councillors and the
community have an adequate chance to contribute to a robust discussion
during these sessions. 
 
Cheers
Mary
 
Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law & Chair, Graduate IP Programs
Franklin Pierce Law Center
Two White Street
Concord, NH 03301
USA
Email: mwong@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Phone: 1-603-513-5143
Webpage: http://www.piercelaw.edu/marywong/index.php
Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network
(SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584


>>> 


From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To:"Adrian Kinderis" <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>,
<stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>, <william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
CC:<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 6/3/2010 11:09 AM
Subject: RE: [council] Meeting Protocol for Brussels and beyond...

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

 



Pierce Law | University of New Hampshire - An Innovative Paternership