AW: [council] Proposed Agenda Item - Elimination of Friday Public Board Meetings
- To: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>, Margie Milam <Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: AW: [council] Proposed Agenda Item - Elimination of Friday Public Board Meetings
- From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" <wolfgang.kleinwaechter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 03 May 2012 09:38:37 +0200
- Cc: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=uni-halle.de; s=uhal1dkim; h=To:From:References:Message-id:Date:Subject; bh=85ytWMWBZ75rz6TpmDVJ6ZDvt1LEjDERxt2WoUvb3xw=; b=p6cvp8PrZ1YIcHpR8RE3QXn4TTZlGQQNp33CoVc47dl63ghDVGmH6KTvvPmEkKfSwgLxNPPH9iWfO/kxZBLnusIN2Qfwa2IRa1oGKwdE0fIFBqndkURP8kNULNEjuZcdkwnTqerDK3ewDGAEhqYiVPsre8+a3kuF7zCLa0BtnnU=;
- List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- References: <1C4C1D63EA1A814AA391AEFD88199A3EC6DEA108@STNTEXCH01.cis.neustar.com> <067ED994-1690-498F-AB1F-FD4D9E99E21F@indom.com> <5792758163D76C4F9C36491EDF2AF7354AF3286142@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <5FD61DB8-5EE5-4A75-AF39-E8DF3911FEB1@indom.com>
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Thread-index: Ac0opbbhPgnwVsL9SkiJRiUZI7SafwAWLvi1
- Thread-topic: [council] Proposed Agenda Item - Elimination of Friday Public Board Meetings
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.
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
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
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.
Le 2 mai 2012 à 22:10, Margie Milam a écrit :
I'll follow up internally to provide the requested information.
[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?
Le 2 mai 2012 à 20:38, Neuman, Jeff a écrit :
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
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.
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