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

[Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi,

I share Mikey's concerns about this being a Board-initiated action. I tend to 
also agree that the AC/SO leadership approach is the most suitable one for this 
endeavour. A little nudge from us to that effect wouldn’t be a bad idea, 
perhaps in the form of a letter from Jonathan on behalf of the Council, urging 
the AC/SO leaders to launch a chartering effort for a CCWG to perform this 
review.

I just don’t see this as a motion that we need a Councillor to make, have it 
seconded then finally voted on. I’ve only been following Council activities for 
a couple of years, but I tend to feel that that is not the purpose they’re 
meant to serve.

Thanks.

Amr

On Mar 1, 2014, at 1:27 PM, Mike O'Connor <mike@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 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.)
>