Re: [council] Now that I have your attention

[Thomas Rickert <rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

All,
very interesting discussion indeed! 

I like the idea of a Board driven initiative, so my suggestion would be that we 
ask Jonathan to reach out to Steve and hear his thoughts. Should the board not 
see itself in a position to do it, the GNSO-Council could lead on it. 

Thomas

=============
thomas-rickert.tel
+49.228.74.898.0

> Am 01.03.2014 um 20:42 schrieb john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
> 
> All.
>  
> My motivation for lighting this fuse was to bring into the light of day a 
> discussion of how ICANN has changed during Fadi's tenure and whether is has 
> been good or bad for the organization and the policy development process.  It 
> is clear that there is noise from every corner of the community about its 
> disenfranchisement. 
>  
> The tools at my disposal (other than moral suasion) are those available to me 
> as a Councillor.  We can put it on our weekend agenda, we can put it on the 
> agenda for the public meeting (promoting both to the full GNSO), we can 
> construct some sort of callfor an issue report or we can move that the 
> initiative be official (though we don't likely have standing).
>  
> I have no commitment to any one approach, but I am committed to the discussion
>  
> So, how best do we make that happen?
>  
> Berard
>  
> --------- Original Message ---------
> Subject: RE: [council] Crowdsourcing a bi-ennial performance review of the 
> ICANN CEO
> From: "Novoa, Osvaldo" <onovoa@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: 3/1/14 5:39 am
> To: "Amr Elsadr" <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: "Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Avri Doria" 
> <avri@xxxxxxx>, "Council" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> 
> Hi,
> I've been following this discussion for a while and I'm a bit doubtful on it 
> being directed to Fahdi directly, I think that the way ICANN is run today is 
> due in great part to Fahdi's initiative but with the Boards support.
> Perhaps the review should be more general aim at how ICANN has been operating 
> these last years without focusing it almost exclusively on Fahdi's term.
> Best regards,
> Osvaldo
> ________________________________________
> De: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] En nombre de 
> Amr Elsadr [aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> Enviado el: sábado, 01 de marzo de 2014 11:34 a.m.
> Para: Mike O'Connor
> CC: Jonathan Robinson; Avri Doria; Council
> Asunto: Re: [council] Crowdsourcing a bi-ennial performance review of the 
> ICANN CEO
> 
> 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><mailto: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><mailto:jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
> 
> 
> Perhaps me too.
> 
> Persuasive input.
> 
> Thanks Avri
> 
> On 1 Mar 2014 10:15, "Avri Doria" <avri@xxxxxxx><mailto: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<mailto: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><mailto:avri@xxxxxxx>>
> Date: 2/21/14 3:31 am
> To: "Council" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx><mailto: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<mailto: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><mailto:jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
> > Date: 2/20/14 1:01 pm
> > To: "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx><mailto:mike@xxxxxxxxxx>>, "John 
> > Berard"
> > <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx><mailto:john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
> > Cc: "Council" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx><mailto: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> 
> > ><mailto:mike@xxxxxxxxxx><mailto:mike@xxxxxxxxxx>>>
> > Date: Thursday, February 20, 2014 at 13:35
> > To: John Berard <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx><mailto:john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > <mailto:john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx><mailto:john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>>
> > Cc: GNSO Council List 
> > <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx><mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > <mailto: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>
> > <mailto: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<tel:651-647-6109>, FAX: 866-280-2356<tel:866-280-2356>, 
> > WEB: www.haven2.com<http://www.haven2.com/>
> > <http://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<http://www.haven2.com/>, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, 
> Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
> 
> 
> El presente correo y cualquier posible archivo adjunto está dirigido 
> únicamente al destinatario del mensaje y contiene información que puede ser 
> confidencial. Si Ud. no es el destinatario correcto por favor notifique al 
> remitente respondiendo anexando este mensaje y elimine inmediatamente el 
> e-mail y los posibles archivos adjuntos al mismo de su sistema. Está 
> prohibida cualquier utilización, difusión o copia de este e-mail por 
> cualquier persona o entidad que no sean las específicas destinatarias del 
> mensaje. ANTEL no acepta ninguna responsabilidad con respecto a cualquier 
> comunicación que haya sido emitida incumpliendo nuestra Política de Seguridad 
> de la Información
> 
> 
> This e-mail and any attachment is confidential and is intended solely for the 
> addressee(s). If you are not intended recipient please inform the sender 
> immediately, answering this e-mail and delete it as well as the attached 
> files. Any use, circulation or copy of this e-mail by any person or entity 
> that is not the specific addressee(s) is prohibited. ANTEL is not responsible 
> for any communication emitted without respecting our Information Security 
> Policy.