ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


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

Re: [council] Council/Chair interaction

No, I do understand your concerns, they are clear. I was just trying to bring 
extra clarity to why I have proposed this.

Could other Councillors please comment? So far we have two very clear "NOs" and 
no other reaction...



Le 19 janv. 2011 à 18:12, Tim Ruiz a écrit :

> 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.
> Tim  
> -------- 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.
> Thanks,
> Stéphane
> 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 >>>