Re: [council] [Soac-infoalert] Draft blog post re Friday Board meetings, SO/AC reports, etc.

[Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>]

Wolf,

Just seen your message after responding to Steve's message in which I explained 
that I was copying you and Jeff so that you could each get feedback from your 
respective houses, but that for obvious reasons of confidentiality, I was not 
sending Steve's message to a public list such as the GNSO's before he says it's 
final and OK to be released.

So I think it's unfortunate that you have just done so.

The Council VCs are true representatives of their houses and I think there are 
times when you should act as direct conduits for any communication coming into 
the Council to each house.

I feel that in order to maintain good levels of trust and cooperation with 
others, there are times when the VCs should operate in this manner and that is 
why I ask you both to do in my earlier message.

Just wanted to clarify that. Thanks. I am not responding on the actual main 
part of your message, as I think you are absolutely correct to state your views 
and engage others. I just wish it had been done as an internal house discussion 
at this early stage.

Thanks,

Stéphane Van Gelder
Directeur Général / General manager
INDOM Group NBT France
----------------
Head of Domain Operations
Group NBT

Le 11 mai 2012 à 08:21, <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx> <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :

> FYI.
>  
> I'm in particular concerned with Steve's asking the Sos/ACs for "...major 
> resolutions in the works that deserve to be dealt with in a public Board 
> meeting" although I understand a positive intention to engage the community 
> in the process of establishing the board agenda. However any criteria to 
> evaluate what "indeed" may be of major interest are missing here (e.g. 
> financial, organizational, policy related impact e.a.). Unsatisfying 
> discussions about the rationale may follow.
> I don't like that the responsibility for the decision to hold a public board 
> meeting is shifted to any SO/AC. To avoid unsatisfying discussions it may be 
> acceptable if the board holds a public meeting in case of at least one (two, 
> three...?) agenda items filed by any AC/SO regardless its assessment.
>  
> Best regards 
> Wolf-Ulrich
>  
> 
> Von: soac-infoalert-bounces@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:soac-infoalert-bounces@xxxxxxxxx] Im Auftrag von Steve Crocker
> Gesendet: Freitag, 11. Mai 2012 01:25
> An: Barbara Ann Clay; Rod Beckstrom; Denise Michel; David Olive; Nick 
> Tomasso; Diane Schroeder; Filiz Yilmaz; Christopher Mondini; 
> soac-infoalert@xxxxxxxxx; Icann-board ICANN
> Cc: Steve Crocker
> Betreff: [Soac-infoalert] Draft blog post re Friday Board meetings, SO/AC 
> reports, etc.
> 
> Folks (Staff, SO and AC chairs, and Board),
> 
> I want to follow up on the announcement that we're wrapping up the ICANN 
> meeting on Thursday evening.  We got a lot of feedback expressing concern, 
> some of which will be allayed with more information.  Below is a draft of a 
> blog entry I'd like to post as soon as it's been properly coordinated.  
> Please take a look and let me know if there are flaws or missing pieces.  
> (And if you know of someone I should have included in this coordination 
> cycle, pass this on and also let me know.)
> 
> If I can get the relevant information re the SO and AC reports, I'll add it 
> in.
> 
> Also, please let me know if there are indeed major resolutions in the works 
> that deserve to be dealt with in a public Board meeting.  If so, we will need 
> to schedule a public Board meeting and I'll need to adjust the wording of 
> this blog posting.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Steve
> 
> ==================================================================================================================================================
> 
> On April 30 I announced we will wrap up the ICANN meeting on Thursday evening 
> and not use Friday.  (Some groups may choose to use Friday for their own 
> meetings; that's fine.)  We have received multiple inputs asking for 
> clarification or suggesting this change has some adverse consequences.  The 
> announcement was a bit light on details.  I wanted to get the decision out so 
> everyone could adjust their travel plans.  Now I want to say a bit more about 
> the changes.
> 
> In the past, we had three parts to the program on Friday morning -- reports 
> from the Board committees, reports from the chairs of the Supporting 
> Organizations and Advisory Committees, and a formal Board meeting.  
> Attendance during all parts of the morning have been very light.  There 
> really has not been much actual utility for the community.  Also every day of 
> meeting time is expensive, not just to ICANN but also to the community.  Like 
> many people, I had been noticing that Friday mornings were not well attended, 
> and it was clear it was time to make a change.  Let me now go into a few 
> details, and I will close with a promise that if the changes we're making for 
> Prague are not in the best interests of everyone, we will continue to evolve 
> the schedule.
> 
> With respect to our Board meetings, the large majority of the resolutions we 
> approve are the regular pieces of business that are known well in advance.  
> The Board approves these resolutions without fanfare.  The substantive work 
> is done via the Supporting Organizations or via staff work, and the work is 
> posted.  Once in while there are Board actions that have some controversy or 
> drama.  The XXX decision in San Francisco and the decision in Singapore to 
> move forward with the gTLD program are the two recent examples that come to 
> mind.  For matters of this import, we will hold a public Board meeting.  In 
> Singapore, we did this at the beginning of the week.  This was a big 
> improvement and really helped set a positive tone for the entire week.  I 
> think this is a good pattern, and I'm inclined to follow this when it's    
> needed.  I don't know how often we'll have to do this; I suspect it will be 
> less than half the time.
> 
> A closely related aspect of this change is we will no longer be rushing 
> through resolutions based on committee work or inputs during the week.  We 
> need to take some time to develop the proper documentation.  So, instead of 
> trying to cap the week off with resolutions passed on the basis of the week's 
> work, we will report on what's come up during the week, what happened between 
> the last ICANN meeting and this one, and what we plan to do following this 
> ICANN meeting.  This is in accordance with the recommendations of the 
> Accountability and Transparency Review Team, and is consistent with the 
> changes we made some time ago to provide more thorough documentation in the 
> form of a rationale for each resolution.  These changes will have the benefit 
> of providing time for careful and considered work on each resolution and 
> better documentation for transparency and accountability.
> 
> Our vice chair, Bruce Tonkin, observes:
> 
> An example of this approach was on the topic of Conflicts of Interest in 
> Dakar in October 2011.  The Board listened to the community during the week, 
> and then in the public session on conflicts Board members gave some feedback 
> to the community on specific measures that would be taken with respect to new 
> gTLDs.  After careful review by the legal team and review by Board members, 
> the Board held a meeting on 8 Dec 2011 and passed a resolution on management 
> conflicts for new gTLDs.  The Board also passed other resolutions that 
> resulted from the discussion in Dakar.
> 
> We have made some related changes in the coordination of Board resolutions 
> and the scheduling of Board meetings.  I will report on these changes in a 
> separate posting.
> 
> We recognize the community wants to see the Board in action and have the 
> opportunity to interact with the Board.  Toward this end, we are making two 
> additional changes.  In the opening session on Monday morning, I will include 
> a summary of what has taken place since the last meeting, and on Thursday 
> afternoon the Board will report on what it has heard during the week.  The 
> Board will continue to engage eagerly in the public sessions, listening 
> closely to the comments from the community and responding to questions.
> 
> At the beginning of this blog I mentioned the reports from the SO and AC 
> chairs and the reports from the Board committees.  We are still working out 
> the arrangements for these and I will report separately on the details.  The 
> SOs and ACs are the lifeblood of ICANN, and we want to make sure they have 
> greater, not lesser visibility.
> 
> Finally, as I noted above, we are working hard to be both more effective and 
> more efficient.  If we need to continue to evolve this process, we will.
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> Steve Crocker
> Chair, ICANN Board of Directors
> 
> 
> <ATT00001.c>