ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


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

[council] About that question to the candidate

  • To: "Stéphane_Van_Gelder" <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [council] About that question to the candidate
  • From: <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 13:15:57 -0700
  • Cc: "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Council" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • User-agent: Web-Based Email 5.6.03


Understand that my initial question was driven by what I read in the RAA
discussion paper: a belief held on the part of the ICANN staff that the
Council is home to disagreements that lead to delays in substantive

I agree with you that progress in a multi-stakeholder organization is
hard and meaningful.  So how come there is a disconnect between what
you/we and staff see as reality? I fully appreciate your desire to be a
guide, but that can be too soft a role.  As chair, I feel, it falls on
you (with our support) to be an advocate for the process and the
Council, too.  

You well know that the latest staff document is not the only instance
when the Council was accused of being a hinderance.  Think JAS.  

My question is simply this:  How can the Council do/how can it operate
so that deliberation is not labeled delay and argument is not called

On this particular question and in light of the effect it can have on
the reputation of the Council (and its individual members), agreeing to
disagree won't be enough.  On other stuff, sure.  Some stuff needs to be
more fully baked before a decision can be made.  But not this one.



-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [council] A question to the candidate
From: Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, October 15, 2011 3:48 pm
To: "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Council" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>


If you're not going to be in Dakar, then let me try and provide you with
an answer onlist. Unfortunately, I won't be back online myself for a few
days, but we can pick up the discussion after that.

I think the Council brings together the most diverse groups within the
ICANN universe. Are we sure we either expect, or want, those groups to
be uniform in their opinions and responses? I think the Council's
diversity of views should, and need, to be expressed. That is where our
strengths lie. In the fact that stakeholders from very different
horizons can pool together their knowledge, experience, and opinions to
steer the GNSO as a whole towards a common goal that best serves the
GNSO (and the wider Internet) community. At SG and constituency level,
it is quite normal to have only one side of the story expressed. Each
group is looking after its own community, and that's the way it should
be. But the Council is the only place where those different views can be
benchmarked against other groups' views and mutual progress achieved.
That makes the Council very unique within ICANN, and vital.

I feel strongly that the Chair must serve as a guide in this process.
The GNSO Council works according to very exact procedures and rules.
Rules, in fact, that we have just spent years, and expended huge amounts
of effort and resources, honing under a new structure. Over the past
year, as Chair, I have done my best to be the custodian of those rules.

I would argue, for example, that part of the answer to your question
lies in using the existing processes in the ICANN bylaws for gTLD policy
development. Too often people think they can short cut the process, or
use a better process  - and in nearly all cases the short cut ends up
taking longer, due the time used in discussing process.

If we use the process we have - then the time can be focussed on the
substantial issues. My job as Chair has been, and will continue to be if
the Council so wishes, to make sure we use our processes, and use them

Thanks for your question,


Le 15 oct. 2011 à 09:08, Adrian Kinderis a écrit :

Mind you JB, agreeing to disagree is not necessarily a bad thing given
the diversity of backgrounds and perspectives in the Council.

Adrian Kinderis 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, 14 October 2011 10:19 PM
To: Stéphane_Van_Gelder
Cc: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Glen_de_Saint_Géry
Subject: RE: [council] Re: A question to the candidate

Dakar is fine, as long as we do not settle for a "we'll just agree to
disagree" conclusion.

I will not be on hand, so just imagine I am there to keep poking at this



  -------- Original Message --------
 Subject: [council] Re: A question to the candidate
 From: Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
 Date: Fri, October 14, 2011 9:41 am
 To: <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
 Cc: "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, 
 "Glen_de_Saint_Géry" <Glen@xxxxxxxxx>

 Thanks John. I am unsure whether you expect an answer by email or would
prefer that we "stockpile" this question for the "Q&A with candidate"
session that we have planned in Dakar?

 I would think that the second option is better, as it means everyone
can join the discussion as and when they wish.

 Also, as I am leaving for Dakar tomorrow and will probably be out of
email range for a few days, if anyone else has any questions that would
mean I could address them all at the same time, which might work better.

 Would you be OK with this?


 Le 14 oct. 2011 à 17:16, <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :

I forgot to switch my earlier email to plain text. Sorry all.



As you think about how you might approach a second term as Chair of
Council, I wonder if you could give us your thoughts on this:

In the “Discussion Paper on Next Steps to Produce a New Form of the
RAA” sent to the Council yesterday by Kurt Pritz, is this:

"We also note that disagreements in the GNSO Council regarding the
process over the last year have resulted in delays in considering the
substantive issues."

This is not the first time or the softest way in which we have heard
this criticism of delay and disharmony. How would you move to solve



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