[council] Re: About that question to the candidate

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

It's important to first identify who is accusing the Council of being a 
hindrance and whether those accusations are real, or just "background noise" 
that someone is picking up on and making an issue of.

There is a lot of pressure put on the GNSO by individuals and groups to get 
what they want. As Chair, I have witnessed that pressure over the past year. My 
response has always been to explain the GNSO's processes and why they are 
important. Why the PDP is important and why circumventing it puts the ICANN 
multi-stakeholder model itself at risk.

As Chair, I have been the standard bearer for the GNSO's model as much and as 
often as I could. This is often not as visible as, say, drafting a meeting 
agenda or running a meeting. But I see it is being a very important part of the 
Chair's role.

If we are speaking of specific issues under consideration by the GNSO, my view 
is that the Chair should not defend them or even discuss them in any way beyond 
just the factual account of where the GNSO is on that specific issue at that 
specific time. Defending issues is your jobs, all of you as Councillors. Mine 
as Chair is to defend the model in general. That is not an individual 
Councillor's job. One of the benchmarks I set myself for being a good Chair and 
doing my job well is to defend that model.

And I have been forceful in doing so, in my interactions with other ICANN 
groups, during the discussions I have with the Chairs of those groups for 
example, in discussions with Board members... At times, I have also been 
staunch in my defense of that model with Staff. They also regularly come under 
pressure to bend to specific wills and desires. But by standing firm in my 
belief that the GNSO's model should be defended, I think I am able to work with 
the rest of the community to permeate that idea. I hope I am able to help Staff 
do so as well, just as they help me apply the GNSO's complex rules and 
procedures at all times.

It is something that I believe requires a good understanding of the GNSO's 
rules and procedures, and the importance of the model to the way the GNSO 
works, which in turn means understanding the importance of the Council's role 
within the GNSO. I believe I have that understanding.

I can tell you that my defense of those ideals in the past year has not always 
gone down well. I have not always made friends by sticking up for the GNSO 
Council. But I took on this position because I believe in that model. I am an 
entrepreneur who started a small business some years back. There are millions 
of people like that around the world. The only difference is the industry I 
joined. Because in this industry, because of the way it is governed through the 
ICANN model and the GNSO's model, I am able to take part at that governance 
level. I am able to interact with others who may have the same ideas, or 
different ideas, but who are all part of the same movement towards making sure 
that in the end, those who use the Internet get the most out of it.

To me, the GNSO Council is an extension, at gTLD community level, of the 
fantastic opportunity that has been given me as an entrepreneur, through ICANN, 
to be able to make an impact at a higher level than just that of my own 
company. The GNSO Council is the vessel which enables us all to make a 
differences at a level higher than that of our own individual groups.

I find your questions very positive John. Because they tell me that you also 
feel very strongly that the procedures and the model which we follow are 
precisely the ones that allows the GNSO's diversity to gel together at Council 
level and hence for the whole GNSO community to move forwards in a positive 
manner, even though the building blocks of that community are often very 
different.

Stéphane



Le 18 oct. 2011 à 22:15, <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :

> Stephane,
> 
> 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
> matters.  
> 
> 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
> disagreement?
> 
> 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.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Berard
> 
> -------- 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>
> 
> John,
> 
> 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
> well.
> 
> Thanks for your question,
> 
> 
> Stéphane
> 
> 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
> matter.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> 
> Berard
> 
>  -------- 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?
> 
> Stéphane
> 
> 
> 
> Le 14 oct. 2011 à 17:16, <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :
> 
> I forgot to switch my earlier email to plain text. Sorry all.
> 
> Berard
> 
> 
> Stephane,
> 
> 
> As you think about how you might approach a second term as Chair of
> the
> 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
> it?
> 
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> 
> Berard
>