ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [council] Council/Chair interaction

  • To: "Stéphane_Van_Gelder" <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [council] Council/Chair interaction
  • From: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2011 10:12:16 -0700
  • Cc: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Reply-to: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • User-agent: Web-Based Email 5.3.05

Those types of things can all be handled easily without a new list. I
think we understand what you are proposing very well. I don't think you
fully understand our concerns and perhaps this should be a topic for our
next Council meeting.

I do not support such a list, but if it happens as an official ICANN
supported/funded list it should be archived, and archived in near real
time. In addition, the "leadership" of each SG/C should be certain to
get clear with its SG/C exactly how or if it will represent them in this
new list.

Certainly, if the various "leaders" want to get together whether on the
phone, some other non-ICANN supported/funded list, etc. to discuss this
or that, they don't need the Council's permission as long it's
understood that each is acting in their own capacity unless they have
gotten appropriate direction otherwise.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [council] Council/Chair interaction
From: Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, January 19, 2011 10:57 am
To: tim@xxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Adrian, Tim,

Needless to say I am surprised by your reaction to something that seems
(to me) as innocuous as a mailing list.

Maybe it would be helpful for me to go into more detail about why I
think this is useful, and provide examples.

One example that comes to my mind is that there could be benefit to the
Council leadership and C and SG leadership in coordinating submissions
to the budget requests. For example, one constituency might have a good
idea about a budget item that they plan to submit as a request. Another
group might also want to submit the same request, if they knew it was
being suggested by one group. As a separate entity, the Council might
also be in that situation. The budget request procedure is new this year
(we were sent the forms a while back by Glen, I have asked for guidance
and more information on how to use them and will keep the Council
informed when I get that). This kind of thing might help us manage this
kind of process better.

Another possible example might be in planning for public meetings. For
example, there has been uncertainty about whether the contracted and
non-contracted party houses should meet (separately) on either Saturday
or Sunday... Olga can tell us how this is shaping up for the SF meeting,
but I can tell you from first-hand experience of working on planning our
meetings with Glen for the past year that this has always been difficult
to handle.

Another point I would make is that this is consistent with the proposal
that came out of the OSC's CCT work team (which is now closed) which
pointed out the need for greater inter SO and AC communication and
better communication with the Board.

As Councillors, we obviously feel (and rightly feel I think) that it is
our job to liaise with our respective groups. But I think there could be
other, non-policy-specific matters where coordination would be of
benefit and would probably lighten the load on the Council as a whole,
if the leaders handle that.

I hope this is helpful for you to better understand the way I am looking
at this and why I think it is useful. Please understand that I have no
religion on this. I merely proposed this to try and improve
communications and processes as I have just described. This list can be
deleted at once if the Council as a whole decides it should be.



Le 19 janv. 2011 à 17:28, tim@xxxxxxxxxxx a écrit :

> Mason has not discussed it with the wider SG, nor even the rest of the ExCom 
> to my knowledge.
> It is the Councilors' place to have that dialogue with their SG leadership. 
> If there is some kind of disconnect between the Councilors and their SG then 
> that needs to be resolved by them, not by circumventing the structure we have 
> so painstakingly put in place.
> It takes more than a straw poll to change that structure. 
> Tim
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
> Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2011 15:57:53 
> To: Tim Ruiz<tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [council] Council/Chair interaction
> Thanks Tim.
> How do others on the Council feel?
> Tim, Adrian, please note that our Chair Mason Cole has expressed his support 
> for this.
> Stéphane
> Le 19 janv. 2011 à 14:35, Tim Ruiz a écrit :
>> Was this discussed with the Council as a whole? Nothing like this should
>> be done without fromal approval of the Council. For the record, I do not
>> agree with this and do not believe the "Council leadership" was put in
>> place to take such actions independently of the rest of the Council.
>> Tim
>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>> Subject: [council] Council/Chair interaction
>>> From: Stéphane Van Gelder
>>> Date: Tue, January 18, 2011 10:44 am
>>> To: GNSO Council 
>>> Councillors,
>>> I wanted to inform you that I have suggested to your group Chairs that a 
>>> mailing list be created to link the C and SG leadership with the Council 
>>> leadership.
>>> Their response was very much in favour, so a mailing list will be set up 
>>> for the Council leaders (Chair and VC) and the group leaders (Chair and VC).
>>> The idea is to improve informal communications between the group leadership 
>>> and the Council.
>>> We are also thinking about a regular conf call at some point, but this is 
>>> not set in stone yet.
>>> Thanks,
>>> Stéphane

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>