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

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I assumed so but wanted to be clear. In any event, as I said, I oppose
such a letter.

Tim
 
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [council] RE: EXTENSION OF DEADLINE - Call for Applicants
for a Position of Volunteer Review Team Member - 29 July 2010
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, July 16, 2010 10:36 am
To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Marilyn
Cade" <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "Wolf Knoben"
<knobenw@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Tony Holmes"
<tonyarholmes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <glen@xxxxxxxxx>, 
<liaison6c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Steve Metalitz" <met@xxxxxxx>, 
<cdigangi@xxxxxxxx>, <sarah.b.deutsch@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "Harris,
Anthony" <harris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <excomm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>


I of course would run it by the Council first Tim, as I have done in
similar circumstances in the past.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Friday, July 16, 2010 11:29 AM
> To: Gomes, Chuck
> Cc: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Marilyn Cade; Wolf
> Knoben; Tony Holmes; glen@xxxxxxxxx; liaison6c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Steve
> Metalitz; cdigangi@xxxxxxxx; sarah.b.deutsch@xxxxxxxxxxx; Harris,
> Anthony; excomm@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [council] RE: EXTENSION OF DEADLINE - Call for Applicants
> for a Position of Volunteer Review Team Member - 29 July 2010
> 
> I oppose it. The "Council Chair" should not take any action like that
> without the approval of the Council as a whole.
> 
> Tim
> 
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: RE: [council] RE: EXTENSION OF DEADLINE - Call for Applicants
> for a Position of Volunteer Review Team Member - 29 July 2010
> From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Fri, July 16, 2010 10:11 am
> To: <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Marilyn Cade" <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
> "Wolf Knoben" <knobenw@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Tony Holmes"
> <tonyarholmes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <glen@xxxxxxxxx>,
> <liaison6c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Steve Metalitz" <met@xxxxxxx>,
> <cdigangi@xxxxxxxx>, <sarah.b.deutsch@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "Harris,
> Anthony" <harris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <excomm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 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