Re: [council] Enhancing ICANN Accountability | ICANN - Proposed Next Steps for the Process

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

On 29-May-14 11:39, john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:


> Now it is a party.

Sorry?


> With regard to your point, there is "far less support for, or 
> agreement on, a bottom-up model" from whom?  The BC strongly
> supports the concept, despite its difference from the more normal
> top-down process in most corporations.

As I tried to explain I think we have different views of the degree of
grasp the bottom-up needs for each and every utterance a Representative
makes.  these give different views of what we regard as bottom-up.  My
expectation is that the senior staff has a more representative notion
ass opposed to the kind of understanding you indicate the BC has, for
example.

> As for Jonathan, he is elected the chair of the GNSO Council and, 
> perhaps, as the titular head of the GNSO in full, the increased use 
> of him by the staff and CEO to stand as the actual head of the
> entire GNSO is a point of irritation for many.


Perhaps, but the bylaws make it clear that he is the elected head of the
GNSO.

I am among those who have found themselves irritated by the fact that
some attempt to diminish that role by trying to limit it to the council.
 I would be equally irritated if the chair were to reject the duality of
the role as chair of the Council and of the  GNSO. I think it is a good
thing that we have someone we can trust to
speak for the GNSO when asked by the Chair of the Board or the President
of Company.

And since that is the way the by-laws names the role, that
is who I was electing, when I voted for chair.  We as council members
where entrusted by our SGs to be representatives and given the vote to
elect a chair for the Supporting organization.  We did and we should not
attempt to undercut the authority he was given by our election.


avri