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: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2011 12:27:15 -0500
  • Accept-language: en-US
  • Acceptlanguage: en-US
  • Cc: "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • In-reply-to: <68A03E93-621D-4120-B16E-9AC103BC528F@indom.com>
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Thread-index: Acu3/bEPfNSRWZ9nQnu1qUzXpGVsGgAABAIQ
  • Thread-topic: [council] Council/Chair interaction

Oops.  Meant to respond to the string about the pre-meeting 2-day "get to know 
you" meeting you've referenced.  Definitely a "no" on that.  

No strong feelings either way on the mailing list with the caveat that I 
haven't gotten any reactions yet from my IPC colleagues.


-----Original Message-----
From: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 12:24 PM
To: Rosette, Kristina
Cc: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [council] Council/Chair interaction

For the same reasons?


Le 19 janv. 2011 à 18:18, Rosette, Kristina a écrit :

> make that three . . .  
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder
> Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 12:16 PM
> To: Tim Ruiz
> Cc: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: 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...
> Thanks,
> Stéphane
> 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 >>>