Re: [council] ICANN Durban - GNSO Council meeting with the Board

["WUKnoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I fully support this approach, Jonathan. It shall shed more clarity on our 
objectives and will definitely lead to better awareness of our arguments.
Along the criteria outlined it should be possible to draft the agenda for the 
meeting with the board.

However there is not too much time for extensive council debate in advance to 
suggesting agenda topics for all cross-meetings (board, Fadi, GAC). So for this 
time at least it would be helpful to put some topics to the table first and 
prepare for the discussions along the criteria. Then we may also avoid the 
impression of throwing topics over the fence.

Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich



From: Jonathan Robinson 
Sent: Sunday, June 16, 2013 1:48 PM
To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
Subject: [council] ICANN Durban - GNSO Council meeting with the Board

All,

 

As you know, Durban is approaching and we have the great opportunity of an hour 
and a half with the ICANN Board.

 

Background

 

In my time on the Council, our meetings with the board have mostly comprised an 
agenda made up from topics sent in both directions which the Council has then 
worked to develop our position on, typically on the Saturday of the weekend 
session.  I feel that these have been characterised, in part, by both the 
Council and the Board “throwing topics over the fence” and, at times, these 
have been lacking in strategic thought and / or thorough preparation by the 
Council.  Also, the tone of the meetings has felt in the past, to me at least, 
to be a little antagonistic and not in necessarily the spirit of moving a topic 
or topics forward.

 

Prior to Beijing, I met with Steve Crocker and discussed with him some of the 
above and part of the outcome of that discussion was a suggestion that the 
Council come to the board with topics.  We did this through a softer 
introduction by me and then got into the “meat in the sandwich” via an 
intervention by Jeff (I recall).  We went on to have a good discussion on some 
critical issues.  The discussion was firm but reasonable and the feedback I 
heard afterwards from both councillors and board members was largely if not 
universally positive.

 

Towards Durban

 

I intend to meet with Steve again before Durban if possible, at least through a 
telephone conversation.  Before doing so, I would like to be sure we are 
heading in the right direction and so would appreciate your input.

 

As chair, my feeling is that we should enter the discussion with an objective.  
What do we want to communicate and how do we want to achieve that?  

In this context, we may also think what we do not want to do / achieve and how 
to make sure of that.

 

My sense of what we should try to communicate is the following:

 

1.       A dynamic and forward looking GNSO Council that is actively seeking to 
undertake productive work in the interests of a successful multi-stakeholder 
model.

2.       A vigilant and responsible GNSO Council with some specific and 
reasonable issues / concerns that will benefit from being aired and discussed.

 

Assuming the above, what is the purpose and substance of 1 & 2.

 

1.       Dynamic and forward looking GNSO Council – Direct communication of 
activity and taking feedback

a.       Key relationships

                                                               i.      Within 
the Council & GNSO

                                                             ii.      With 
ICANN staff

                                                            iii.      With 
others in the ICANN ecosystem
(Actively reaching out to Board, GAC, ccNSO, other groups to participate in 
joint initiatives)

b.      Operational productivity and efficiency initiatives

c.       Critical new / forward looking initiatives
(in addition to “regular” policy work)

                                                               i.      
Development of a set of principles to guide (cross) community working groups

                                                             ii.      
Initiation of a WG to examine and develop critical issues around policy and 
implementation

                                                            iii.      Awareness 
of forthcoming reviews (of GNSO & GNSO Council) and willingness to anticipate 
these

2.       Vigilant and responsible GNSO Council – Able to coherently highlight 
critical issues, discuss these and move the agenda forward

a.       The MS model is critical to the “defence” of ICANN, the MS Model needs 
to be upheld

b.      BB

c.       CC

 

Summary

 

My belief is that we have an opportunity, and should seize it, to communicate 
positively and in a way which we are most likely to be engaged with 
productively.

I think the issues raised and discussed in 2 above will benefit from the 
context of 1 and so a structure along the lines above will work and will 
welcome your feedback.

 

Please note that 2 may contain one or more topics.  I have suggested one so far 
since it links to our discussion, both in Beijing and subsequently, and could 
do with being moved on / developed.

 

Look forward to your feedback and input on the above.

 

 

Jonathan