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

[Mason Cole <mcole@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I fully agree with the approach as well.  Working toward an objective is far 
more preferable to "what would you like to talk about?"  The clearer we are, 
the more likely we are to do something productive in each meeting.


On Jun 18, 2013, at 2:29 PM, WUKnoben wrote:

> 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
>  
>  
>