<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [council] DRAFT/early thoughts on what a CEO performance review motion
Thanks John,
That’s helpful to my understanding of where’re you’re coming from on this issue.
However, notwithstanding the fact that you may view the forum as not being fit
for (this) purpose, it is the case that the weekend sessions are open to anyone.
Jonathan
From: john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 27 February 2014 20:58
To: jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx; 'Amr Elsadr'; 'Mike O'Connor'
Cc: 'John Berard'; 'Klaus Stoll'; 'Council'
Subject: RE: [council] DRAFT/early thoughts on what a CEO performance review
motion
Jonathan,
You are missing the point. You or us talking to Fadi is still management
control. I want to create the chance for ANYONE to speak up.
I am not wedded to a motion (especially if our portfolio does not allow it) but
I would like catalyze the energy (as expressed by Mikey and Amr and Maria and
James already on our list) is a way that demonstrates that we see the need.
Whether the exercise strengthens Fadi's hand or slaps it, I think we should.
But I am but one vote and have made but one suggested approach.
As noted by Langston Hughes, "What happens to a dream deferred? / Does it dry
up / like a raisin in the sun?"
Dramatic, but pointed in the right direction.
Cheers,
Berard
--------- Original Message ---------
Subject: RE: [council] DRAFT/early thoughts on what a CEO performance review
motion
From: "Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 2/27/14 12:49 pm
To: "'Amr Elsadr'" <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "'Mike O'Connor'" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "'John Berard'" <johnberard@xxxxxxx>, "'Klaus Stoll'" <kdrstoll@xxxxxxxxx>,
"'John Berard'" <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "'Council'" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
All,
Notwithstanding John’s idea to provoke us a little on this, I think there is
some wise counsel from Mikey & Amr and probably reason to pause.
Consider any proposed action or activity in the context of:
1. The role / remit of the Council
2. The potnetial impact on reputation / perception of the Council and /
or ICANN
Also, there’s no reason, given that he has agreed to meet with us, that we
cannot talk directly with Fadi about concerns or issues.
I haven’t spoken with him 1:1 for a while but we are (almost) certain to have
the opportunity in Singapore.
So, in addition to 1 & 2 above, time or timing.
Jonathan
From: Amr Elsadr [mailto:aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 27 February 2014 20:35
To: Mike O'Connor
Cc: John Berard; Klaus Stoll; John Berard; Council
Subject: Re: [council] DRAFT/early thoughts on what a CEO performance review
motion
Hi,
Totally agree, Mikey. I would, however, be more inclined to lend my support to
this if it weren’t drafted as a motion, but rather something more in the lines
of an informal recommendation from us to the SO/AC leadership adding to it the
suggestion of chartering a CCWG, and leave it for them to decide if and how
they would like to pursue it.
I would also leave the part in the last paragraph regarding championing changes
to the policy development process out, because, I don’t see that he has
actually done that in this instance. Of course, if you all would like to add
the new gTLD strawman topic of early last year, and specifically the inclusion
of the 50 confusingly similar strings to the TM Clearinghouse records…, well…,
that’s one time I feel the PDP was truly bypassed.
On another less serious note…,
On 2/27/2014 7:43 PM, john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
[SNIP]
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,”
Hasn’t Fadi, through his actions, actually managed to bring this community
together and help us reach consensus…, at least on this topic?!?! :)
Thanks.
Amr
On Feb 27, 2014, at 8:53 PM, Mike O'Connor <mike@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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
<http://www.haven2.com/> , HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook,
LinkedIn, etc.)
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|