RE: [council] RE: EXTENSION OF DEADLINE - Call for Applicants for a Position of Volunteer Review Team Member - 29 July 2010

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

Mike,

 

Let me make sure I understand what you are saying.  Do you oppose me
signing such a letter as Council Chair?

 

Chuck

 

From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Friday, July 16, 2010 11:08 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck; 'Marilyn Cade'; 'Wolf Knoben'; 'Tony Holmes';
glen@xxxxxxxxx; liaison6c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; 'Steve Metalitz';
cdigangi@xxxxxxxx; sarah.b.deutsch@xxxxxxxxxxx; Harris, Anthony;
excomm@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [council] RE: EXTENSION OF DEADLINE - Call for Applicants
for a Position of Volunteer Review Team Member - 29 July 2010

 

To my knowledge, which may be limited, there is no precedent nor reason
for the Council chair to be taking input from Constituency chairs, as
opposed to Councilors.  If a letter is contemplated to come from the
Council chair, then this discussion needs to happen on the Council list.
Personally speaking, I don't see this as a high priority for Council or
the Council chair to be addressing on such a 'rush' basis.  I haven't
noted any more than two members of the BC stating this is a significant
issue, either.

 

Mike Rodenbaugh

RODENBAUGH LAW

tel/fax:  +1 (415) 738-8087

http://rodenbaugh.com <http://rodenbaugh.com/> 

 

From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Friday, July 16, 2010 7:04 AM
To: Marilyn Cade; Wolf Knoben; Tony Holmes; glen@xxxxxxxxx;
liaison6c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Steve Metalitz; cdigangi@xxxxxxxx;
sarah.b.deutsch@xxxxxxxxxxx; Harris, Anthony; excomm@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [council] RE: EXTENSION OF DEADLINE - Call for Applicants for a
Position of Volunteer Review Team Member - 29 July 2010

 

With the exception of the request that applications be submitted by
Monday which has since been withdrawn and with the condition that I see
the actual wording of the letter and have opportunity to suggest edits,
I see no reason why I could not sign the letter.  I do believe we need
to make at least two points in addition to what Marilyn suggests: 1) A
change such as this extension where the deadline impacts time sensitive
processes of any of the organizations must receive affirmative support
from those organizations before it is done; 2) In the case of the GNSO,
it is totally inappropriate for the GNSO to be asked to compromise a
process that it has designed to be as bottom-up as possible in a
compressed timeframe without input from the GNSO.

 

Chuck

 

From: Marilyn Cade [mailto:marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Friday, July 16, 2010 8:19 AM
To: Wolf Knoben; Tony Holmes; Gomes, Chuck; glen@xxxxxxxxx;
liaison6c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Steve Metalitz; cdigangi@xxxxxxxx;
sarah.b.deutsch@xxxxxxxxxxx; Harris, Anthony; excomm@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: EXTENSION OF DEADLINE - Call for Applicants for a Position of
Volunteer Review Team Member - 29 July 2010

 

Dear Colleagues

 

I am disquieted by the confusion introduced by ICANN into the RT
processes.  It was undoubtedly well meaning, but has disrupted already
stressed processes. 

 

I would think that it would be clear to ICANN's senior leadership and
Board, and staff that fulfilling, with excellence, the AoC, and related
Review Team processes, is incredibly important and significant to
ICANN's credibility.  I spoke at the public forum at Brussels that the
"AOC document was heard around the world".  and I meant that. The work
of the RTs is an underpinning to implementing an accountable and
responsible ICANN that is built upon self review, and self correction,
where needed.  

 

The community [meaning all of us]  is struggling with its own work
loads, and its own day to day challenges of delivering services,
products, or just 'running the Internet'.  Or  being users of the
Internet, and relying on the DNS, or other functions that ICANN is
coordinating.  The amount of pro bono contributions of time and
resources from all stakeholders into ICANN is phenomenal, and is what
makes ICANN work, and supports its success. It is challenging to tell
that ICANN itself fully understands how to work with the fuller
community, or quite has a grasp on how the organization should support
the work of the community, who after all, are ICANN.  I do not consider
any stakeholder a 'volunteer', since standards organizations and
associations and NGOs do not consider the work of their communities
'voluntary'. They survive because of that work and active involvement of
the community, supported by staff at all levels, and by a Board that
respects the value of broad, strong, diverse community support. 

 

 

 

Having said all that, I am disappointed, like all of you about the
confusion that has been introduced into the process. 

I do not want to dwell on that, OR waste time in chastisement or
arguments.  

 

Let's try to accept that this is a 'pilot' approach to developing the
RTS, insist that there be an end of year discussion, which we should
contribute to, if not drive, on how such processes will work within this
SO, collaborate with our colleagues in other SOs and ACs, and be
'better' in 2011.

 

How about a solution? Or at least an approach: 


I had a call with Chuck Gomes last night, and want to thank him for his
time. 

 

I am going to encourage the business community to submit their
nominations on Monday. I cannot guarantee that 'works', since the
business wide community is not necessarily following the machinations of
the ICANN processes, ever "winding" as they are now.  And, I must have
taken my role as CSG alternate/BC Chair too seriously, and promptly
widely distributed the extension. 

 

Extensions are in general good things, and I know that busy people
welcomed the notice. 

 

However, Wolf, as usual, is offering a sane proposal. BUT, we need to
ask for a consistent treatment. We can't have different rules for
different stakeholders. 

 

I propose that we  1) cajole the community to submit by Monday, noting
that there is an ICANN announced extension but that in our leadership
capacities within the GNSO, we urge submissions by Monday:  2) jointly
send a letter to the selectors, copied to full Board,  noting that the
announcement[of extension introduced confusion; noting that there
remains a strong commitment on the part of the GNSO community that the
number of reps to the RT should be a minimum of 4 from GNSO, cite the
reasons there [work load; diversity; broadened perspectives; respect for
the bottom up and diverse nature of the GNSO community]; and note that
we can only function with an extension that is equally applied to all RT
nominees. 

 

I would propose that the Council's chair sign it;   Chairs of
constituencies should sign it.  Send it Monday. Copy full Board, and
Chair of GAC. 

 

I have copied the BC Executive Committee on this email. I do not have
posting privileges to the Council.

 

Marilyn Cade

BC Chair