AW: [council] Proposed Agenda Item - Elimination of Friday Public Board Meetings

["Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" <wolfgang.kleinwaechter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi everybody
 
I tend top agree with Stephane, however if I remember the "openess and 
transparency" discussions from Singapore, Berlin and Santiago (1999) the 
problem was that the broader public wanted to see also the individual pros and 
cons of Board members in a controversial issue before a decision was made. Fill 
transparency was the call and the Board used it indirectly as an argument to 
demonstrate its openess in contrast to the closed GAC meetings. The outcome, as 
it was described recently by Izumi, was that on the one hand we had open Board 
debates where Karl Auerbach spoke against a proposal and Mueller-Maguhn was 
silent and abstained while other internal Board discussions moved to "closed 
lunch and dinner sessions". With other words there is no ideal solution. What 
is needed is a right mix between open discussions (which are not just a "show 
for the masses") and closed meetings based on the Chatham House rules. New 
forms of interaction between the public and the Board - as proposed now - are a 
step in the right direction and we should test it out whether this works in 
Prague. BTW, what thje GAC is doing since a couple of years can be seen as a 
good example. The GAC has learned from the Baord, probably the Board can also 
learn from the GAC.  
 
Wolfgang    

________________________________

Von: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx im Auftrag von Stéphane Van Gelder
Gesendet: Mi 02.05.2012 22:52
An: Margie Milam
Cc: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Council
Betreff: Re: [council] Proposed Agenda Item - Elimination of Friday Public 
Board Meetings


Thanks Margie, much appreciated. 

In the meantime, let me add some more context for the benefit of the Council.

In CR, Steve asked me what I would think of the idea of shortening the ICANN 
meeting week by doing away with the Friday. This was floated to me as just an 
idea. I was given no indication that it would be implemented one day, let alone 
in Prague. And I was given no details on its possible implementation.

When Steve discussed this with me, I did not get the sense that he meant to do 
a public consultation on this decision. This was a private conversation and not 
one where it was at any time made clear to me that I should break Steve's 
confidence and discuss this publicly. That is why I did not discuss this here.

This week's announcement has, as Jeff says, generated some negative comments. 
Those that I have seen are that this decision was taken without any 
consultation and that doing away with the Friday Board meeting is detrimental 
to transparency.

My own personal view is otherwise. I believe that cutting the Friday out of the 
ICANN week is a step in the right direction towards reducing costs and time 
challenges for meeting participants, including the Board. Over the past year, I 
have seen the Board work hard to improve its transparency. We now have detailed 
rationale on votes at every meeting and explanations of the issues being 
considered. So I am comfortable with giving the Board a little of the benefit 
of the doubt in trying out new ideas such as this one.

Stéphane



Le 2 mai 2012 à 22:10, Margie Milam a écrit :


        
        Hi Stéphane,
        I'll follow up internally to provide the requested information.
         
        Best regards,
        Margie
         
        From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder
        Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2012 2:08 PM
        To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Council
        Subject: Re: [council] Proposed Agenda Item - Elimination of Friday 
Public Board Meetings
         
        Is someone from Staff able to provide the requested information, 
whether it be on the list or during the next Council meeting?
         
        Stéphane
         
         
         
        Le 2 mai 2012 à 20:38, Neuman, Jeff a écrit :


        All,
         
        Given the announcement yesterday of the elimination of the public Board 
meetings at ICANN, I would like to put this on the Council agenda as a 
discussion item.  I would like it if someone from ICANN that is familiar with 
the rationale behind this decision could give us an explanation of how and why 
that decision was made. 
         
        Also, if the ICANN Board can unilaterally declare that all of its 
meetings will be private, does this set a precedent for its Supporting 
Organizations to do the same thing?  I have not reviewed the bylaws with 
respect to the Council in a little bit, but does the Council have the 
discretion to declare that it will no longer hold a public GNSO Council meeting 
at ICANN?
        
        I think there has been enough disapproval expressed within the 
community in the last day or so that at least merits a discussion of this 
decision at the Council level.
        
        Thanks.
         

        Jeffrey J. Neuman 
        Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs
        21575 Ridgetop Circle, Sterling, VA 20166
        Office: +1.571.434.5772  Mobile: +1.202.549.5079  Fax: +1.703.738.7965 
/ jeff.neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:jeff.neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx>   / www.neustar.biz 
<http://www.neustar.biz/>