ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


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

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

I think we are mixing meeting efficiency and transparency here. What's
important to the community, IMHO, is transparency. Some inefficiency
(shorted / longer length of ICANN week) can somehow can be tolerated as
most of us are part-timers / volunteers. If we are all getting paid for
what we're doing for ICANN, we should be able to make rather quick and
simply decision for this issue -- cut it short. Does some (if not all)
Board members get paid for their services to ICANN ?

If shorter meeting time can help boost efficiency (i.e. decision has to be
made in X time), that's fine. If longer meeting time can help ensure
quality of decision (including the rational), that's fine too. If ICANN
struggles in half way, then it should at least ensure transparency (and
public increase) is always there.

Just my two cents.


On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 9:16 PM, Stéphane Van Gelder <
stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Thanks Wolf and Wolfgang for your comments.
> If there is more decision on this, could I urge others to chime in so that
> we can ascertain whether a full agenda item is needed on this, or whether
> the discussion can be had on the list.
> Thanks,
> Stéphane Van Gelder
> Directeur Général / General manager
> INDOM Group NBT France
> ----------------
> Head of Domain Operations
> Group NBT
> Le 3 mai 2012 à 11:38, <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx> <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :
>  My personal view on this is mixed.
> Saving of time and money is always preferable - but not at the expense of
> transparency when the board is taking decisions at public meetings.
> SO/AC/BC reporting could be removed by providing them in written form only.
> But it makes a difference
> - to hold "a one-hour session following the Public Forum on Thursday
> afternoon..... and outline what they have heard during the week from their
> meetings with AC/SOs and their constituent parts and identify those matters
> they expect to be dealing with...", to decide upon during non-public board
> sessions and at the following ICANN Public Meeting to "report to the
> community on what they have dealt with since Prague"
> or
> - to discuss and take decisions publicly
> I'm curious to know whether this board decision was based on the survey
> ("Improving Global Engagement") ICANN started in March where they solicited
> community input on improving e.g. effectiveness. For me the Public Meetings
> - with all their facets - are per se the highlights of global engagement.
> Best regards
> Wolf-Ulrich
>  ------------------------------
> *Von:* owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> *Im Auftrag von *Stéphane Van Gelder
> *Gesendet:* Mittwoch, 2. Mai 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  */* www.neustar.biz****

Vice President, DotAsia Organisation LTD.
Chair, Asia Pacific Networking Group
Member of ICANN GNSO Council & RySG
Email: chiao@xxxxxxxxxxxxx     Skype: chiao_rw
Mobile: +886-918211372  |  +86-13520187032
www.registry.asia | www.apngcamp.asia

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