ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


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

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

I agree with Stephane's comment regarding time and efficiency, but also with 
Thomas' comment regarding transparency.  I'm all for doing what's reasonable to 
keep meetings manageable.  However, the board selectively discloses information 
about its decisions as it is.  I'd like to hear about why this improves 
transparency.  If there's a credible reason, I'm likely to be okay with it.

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of Thomas Rickert
Sent: Thu 5/3/2012 9:27 AM
To: Stéphane Van Gelder
Cc: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [council] Proposed Agenda Item - Elimination of Friday Public 
Board Meetings
Stéphane, all,
holding meetings for the sake of having them and wasting everyone's valuable 
time should by all means avoided (I am sure most of you have seen the 
educational videos  "Meetings, Bloody Meetings" with John Cleese, which I 
highly recommend :-)).

I also understand that it is a challenge to travel to three meetings per year 
that last for a week. 

Thus, I fully support the idea of making meetings more effective. 

- publishing the committee reports sounds reasonable. 
- adding two sessions with community interaction sounds reasonable, too.

However, I am not convinced that the public Board meeting should be sacrificed 
to shorten the meeting by one day. 
Looking at the number of attendees, only those interested in the Board meetings 
participate on Friday. Participation is voluntary and those who want to spend 
less time at the meetings have the choice to leave.

Eliminating the public Board meeting to save time sounds patronizing to me. I 
do agree that it is at times a theatre and that the format could be improved. 
Nonetheless, even if it is a theatre, participants get the chance to learn how 
the group works and what the views of the board members are. I also think it 
makes a difference for board members to express their views publicly, so they 
might even be more diligent (I am not indicating board members are not 
diligent, but chaining the format may have that effect). 

While I do believe that the Board made this change with the best intentions, I 
think it was wrong (at least for the Prague meeting to start) and inadequately 

- There was no consultation (at least I have not seen any) on this subject 
matter to get community feedback whether or not the community wishes the board 
to save its time.

- In its announcement, ICANN does not offer any alternatives to keep 
transparency at the same level. This gives raise to the suspicion that there 
will be less transparency in the future.

- Timing for this change is unfortunate given the TAS interruption, the 
upcoming controversial batching process and the IANA bid. Taking the meetings 
out of the public arena may be perceived as not wishing to publicly discuss 
these (and certainly other) important matters.

Maybe meetings can actually be streamlined and end earlier, but in my view, 
this should not be done in a phase where ICANN is exposed to criticism as much 
as now.


Thomas Rickert, Attorney at Law

Managing Partner, Schollmeyer & Rickert Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft mbH

Director Names & Numbers, eco Association of the German Internet Industry

Am 03.05.2012 um 15:16 schrieb Stéphane Van Gelder:

        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.


                                        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"
                - 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 

                Best regards 



                        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.


                        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,
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 
                                                                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 
                                                                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.
                                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/> 


Thomas Rickert, Rechtsanwalt
Schollmeyer &  Rickert Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft m.b.H. (i.e. law firm)
Geschäftsführer / CEO: Torsten Schollmeyer, Thomas Rickert
HRB 9262, AG Bonn

Büro / Office Bonn:
Kaiserplatz 7-9, 53113 Bonn, Germany
Phone: +49 (0)228 74 898 - 0

Büro / Office Frankfurt a.M.:
Savignystraße 43, 60325 Frankfurt, Germany
Phone: +49 (0)69 714 021 - 56

Zentralfax: +49 (0)228 74 898 - 66

mailto: rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx
skype-id: trickert
web: www.anwaelte.de

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