Re: [council] DRAFT/early thoughts on what a CEO performance review motion

["Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>]

hi all,

sometimes i come up with an idea late at night that sounds killer clever — and 
then the next morning i look at it in the light of day and realize that if i 
really want to pull this idea off, it’s going to take a lot more thinking and 
refinement before it’s ready.

immediate reactions:

- i’m uncomfortable with the “constituency and stakeholder leadership” phrase — 
if it’s truly going to be reflective of the bottom-up process, the 
participation ought to be open, just like a working group is open 

- if it’s going to be run like a working group, it ought to be chartered like a 
working group — problem statement, scope, approach, deliverables, all that jazz

- if it’s really going to be reflective of the whole community it ought to be a 
cross-community working group and not contained by the edges of the GNSO

as i follow my nose down that chain of logic i find myself stepping back a bit. 
 are we really ready to take this on?  are we really the right group?  is this 
really the best way to express our concerns?

is this the battle that’s most important to fight right now?  

mikey


On Feb 27, 2014, at 1:20 PM, John Berard <johnberard@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> Klaus,
> 
> As I said, this is new ground and deserves the group's thinking.  Consider my 
> efforts merely the provocation.
> 
> Berard
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Klaus Stoll <kdrstoll@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: john <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; council <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Thu, Feb 27, 2014 11:10 am
> Subject: Re: [council] DRAFT/early thoughts on what a CEO performance review 
> motion
> 
> Dear Berard, Dear All
> 
> Whereas, I am not necessarily opposed to the motion, I wonder if the GNSO is 
> the right place to move and develop it. As a newcomer to the GNSO Council, I 
> want to be clear if this is inside the pdp remit of the council.
> 
> Please advice!
> 
> Yours, Klaus
> 
> PS: Whereas I move, the motion should be filed under "clever ICANN CEO's 
> assassination attempts". :-) 
> 
>   On 2/27/2014 7:43 PM, john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> All,
>> Does this get at the intent?  Suggestions are more than welcome as I think 
>> we are breaking new ground here.  I apologize if the format is not perfect, 
>> but if we crowdsource it, I think we can button it up.
>> Cheers,
>> Berard
>> Whereas, Fadi Chehade was announced as the new CEO and President of ICANN at 
>> the organization’s meeting in Prague in June 2012, and
>> Whereas, in his first presentation to the ICANN community in Prague in June 
>> 2012, he noted that “I am driven by building consensus.  It is the reason I 
>> am here today. There is no other reason. I love doing this. Bringing 
>> communities that on the face of it could never be brought together to agree 
>> on common things is exactly what I strive to do,” and
>> Whereas, as reported at the time he joined ICANN, “In selecting Chehade, 
>> ICANN went with someone who isn't well known and isn't well versed in the 
>> organization's core tasks — keeping the Internet address system running 
>> smoothly,” and
>> Whereas, in the two years of his term, the landscape of the Internet and 
>> role played by ICANN has changed in ways equal only to the origin of the 
>> organization, including significant budget and staff increases, and
>> Whereas, in response to the expanded attention to the domain name system and 
>> ICANN’s role in managing it, Chehade has championed changes in the policy 
>> development process,
>> Therefore, beginning on March 26, 2014 with the passage of this motion, and 
>> continuing through the next ICANN public meeting in London in June 2014, the 
>> community, under the leadership of a review committee comprised of the 
>> GNSO’s constituency and stakeholder leadership, shall have the opportunity 
>> to offer comment on the performance of the CEO.
>>  
> 


PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP 
(ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)