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

[John Berard <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Jonathan,

One need not look beyond the transcripts of Council meetings to identify issue 
of mutual interest or concern that can serve as a more grounded and specific 
agenda for the meeting with the Board.

Among them are:

The GNSO & GNSO Council Review
Operational? Organizational? Delayed?

GAC Advice
Separate from or additions to the Guidebook requirements? Filter for 
acceptance? Enforcement?

Cross-community working groups
Policy or polity?  Board approval? 

That kind of thing,

Berard

Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 18, 2013, at 6:18 PM, Mason Cole <mcole@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 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
>