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

[Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>]

I agree with Jaime and others that this is much ado about nothing.

Stéphane

Le 16 juil. 2010 à 23:12, Jaime Wagner - CGI a écrit :

> 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@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
>  
> 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
>  
>