<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
AW: [council] Meeting Protocol for Brussels and beyond...
Just to answer your question: there is consensus within the ISPCP constituency
not to "close" the weekend council sessions as I've pointed out.
Regards
Wolf-Ulrich
________________________________
Von: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 3. Juni 2010 17:03
An: Adrian Kinderis; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx;
william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Betreff: 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
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|