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

["Jaime Wagner - CGI" <jaime@xxxxxx>]

Cuck

 

We are making such a fuzz about this issue! 

It?s not policy making. It?s not even politics, at least the politics of
opposing ideas and interests. It?s about who has the power to fix or change
a schedule. Or even worse: who has the power to ask the selectors to change
the schedule.

BTW, I don?t oppose you signing the letter.

 

Jaime Wagner
CGI (Comitê Gestor da Internet no Brasil)
Representante dos Provedores de Acesso e Conteúdo
jaime <mailto:jaime@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> @cgi.br <mailto:jaime@xxxxxx>
(51)8126-0916
j.w@xxxxxxxxxxx

 

De: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Em
nome de Gomes, Chuck
Enviada em: sexta-feira, 16 de julho de 2010 12:11
Para: icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; 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
Assunto: RE: [council] RE: EXTENSION OF DEADLINE - Call for Applicants for a
Position of Volunteer Review Team Member - 29 July 2010

 

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