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.
Therefore,
- 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 implemented.
- 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
___________________________________________________________
Thomas Rickert, Attorney at Law
Managing Partner, Schollmeyer & Rickert Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft mbH
www.anwaelte.de
Director Names & Numbers, eco Association of the German Internet Industry
www.eco.de
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.
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>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>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>mailto:jeff.neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx>
/ www.neustar.biz <<http://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