Re: [council] Crowdsourcing a bi-ennial performance review of the ICANN CEO

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

i like the idea of a review by the community.

i was uncomfortable with the motion that John wrote, which a) seemed too 
GNSO-focused and b) launched a review without first taking some time to 
describe what the goals/process would be.

i also like the idea of nudging this toward the Board, or some other body that 
speaks for all the AC/SOs.  the trouble i see with that idea is that the Board 
may very well come back and say

        - we already give Fadi performance feedback, why are you coming to us 
with this?

        - we don’t speak for the community, we tend to the larger interests of 
ICANN

how about this for an alternative approach…  what if Jonathan and the other 
AC/SO leaders put together their own “Montevideo Statement” (after consultation 
with their respective gangs) that assessed their view of the current situation 
and, among other things, called for the chartering and launch of such a review, 
independent of the Board?  

this reminds me a bit of the climate that led to the creation of the DSSA — 
which was consciously chartered as a CCWG.  the Board eventually screwed the 
DSSA up, but we got a lot done until they did.  maybe we wire this one up a 
little more tightly, to avoid Board meddling this time around.

mikey


On Mar 1, 2014, at 4:51 AM, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Perhaps me too.
> 
> Persuasive input.
> 
> Thanks Avri
> 
> On 1 Mar 2014 10:15, "Avri Doria" <avri@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 01-Mar-14 10:33, Avri Doria wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I have been informed that sometimes my first reaction can be harsh. This
> is a failing I have spent many years trying to reform, since once I hear
> the other sides of an issue, my perception frequently softens a wee bit
> and even .
> 
> Saw the incomplete sentence:
> 
> and even causes me to change my mind on occasion.
> 
>  Unfortunately sometimes I type more quickly than I
> self-repress and I am grateful for the intervention of friends who warm
> me when my harshness threshold goes too high.
> 
> This makes me think that perhaps you are right and this is a good pilot
> of the newly recommended modality.  It would be helpful to see how this
> mechanism could work on issues in a community such as ours.
> 
> I would be interested in possibly seconding a motion, if we can phrase
> it in the form of a request that the ICANN board initiate such an
> exercise.  Perhaps they could even request that Beth, or some from her
> branded institute for which we have seen multiple notices, lead us in
> the activity to show us how it is done.  Of course, the board would not
> be bound by the outcome, but if they initiated the process, they might
> at least consider it as seriously as they consider the panoply of other
> advisory panel recommendations.
> 
> I think the exercise may be rather important in that it is only the most
> active of voices that we hear on the subject of our leadership.  And
> whether we love Fadi or not as our leader, or even believe we need a
> leader of his caliber and vision, it is a topic where we need to hear
> the broader voice of the community before we know whether the community
> favors an extended mandate.
> 
> Thanks you for suggesting this, and apologies for my initial pooh-poohing.
> 
> avri
> 
> 
> On 21-Feb-14 17:21, john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Avri,
> Note my earlier email.  It may be that no one will hear, but that does
> not mean we should not ask.
> Berard
> 
>     --------- Original Message ---------
>     Subject: Re: [council] Crowdsourcing a bi-ennial performance review
>     of the ICANN CEO
>     From: "Avri Doria" <avri@xxxxxxx>
>     Date: 2/21/14 3:31 am
>     To: "Council" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> 
>     Hi,
> 
>     Interesting idea, but what makes you think anyone on the Board would
>     care what the crowd had to say. They barely care about what the duly
>     constituted SOs, ACs or Review Teams have to say beyond what the
>     by-laws
>     force them to care about.
> 
>     Now, if we can get National government ministers to crowd source the
>     review, maybe there is a chance they will pay attention.
> 
>     avri
> 
>     On 20-Feb-14 22:11, john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>      > James,
>      > Yes, we should include all, but the ball has to start rolling
>      > somewhere. I figure we can do that.
>      > Berard
>      >
>      > --------- Original Message ---------
>      > Subject: Re: [council] Crowdsourcing a bi-ennial performance
> review
>      > of the ICANN CEO
>      > From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>      > Date: 2/20/14 1:01 pm
>      > To: "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>, "John Berard"
>      > <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>      > Cc: "Council" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>      >
>      > Also think this is worth of discussion, but should include other
>      > SO/ACs in an effort to provide a “360” review.
>      > J.
>      > From: Mike O'Connor <mike@xxxxxxxxxx ><mailto:mike@xxxxxxxxxx>>
>      > Date: Thursday, February 20, 2014 at 13:35
>      > To: John Berard <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>      > <mailto:john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
>      > Cc: GNSO Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>      > <mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
>      > Subject: Re: [council] Crowdsourcing a bi-ennial performance
> review
>      > of the ICANN CEO
>      > hi John,
>      > i sense a certain irony in your reference to crowdsourcing, but i
>      > went ahead and circulated your proposal amongst the ISPCP —
> initial
>      > reactions are positive. i personally think it’s a great idea.
>      > mikey
>      >
>      > On Feb 20, 2014, at 10:28 AM, john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>      > <mailto:john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>      >
>      > All,
>      > I think the next meeting of the ICANN, scheduled for London,
>      > marks two years of Fadi Chehade's term as the organization's
>      > President and CEO. In light of the interest driven by the
>      > Strategy Panels in what is called crowd sourcing, I wonder if we
>      > should consider instigating a performance review of the
>      > executive using that method.
>      > We can announce the initiative in Singapore and prepare a report
>      > for the London meeting. The standing for the Council is the
>      > growing executive influence over policy, looking no further than
>      > the rise of appointed strategy panels in lieu of community-based
>      > working groups.
>      > What is your view?
>      > Cheers,
>      > Berard
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      > PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com
>      > <http://www.haven2.com>, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter,
>      > Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
>      >
> 
> 
> 


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