Re: [council] Council/Chair interaction

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

Thanks for that clarification Kristina.

On the meeting, I will respond that the Council does not want me to go.

On the email list, not many people have responded but those that have are 
clearly against the idea. I will therefore ask for the list to be suspended and 
inform the Chairs of this. They can then work through their groups, and then 
through their Council reps, if they want it re-activated.

Thanks,

Stéphane

Le 19 janv. 2011 à 18:27, Rosette, Kristina a écrit :

> 
> 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.
> 
> K
> 
> -----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?
> 
> Stéphane
> 
> 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
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
>