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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,


I strongly disagree with this.

avri


On 29-May-14 12:21, Tony Holmes wrote:
> I have to support John here. Any expectation by ICANN staff or from
> Fadi, that Jonathan or anyone else as chair of the Council can speak for
> all of the GNSO on any, issue needs to be nailed. It’s not a practical
> proposition, neither is it fair on those individuals who sit in the hot
> seat. However I have little doubt that if we don’t continually strive to
> make that abundantly clear, it’ll be used as a fast track route for
> progressing contentious issues when it suits.
> 
>  
> 
> This does not imply any criticism, I’m  aware that Jonathan in
> particular has often gone out of his way to state that he’s not
> empowered to speak for the GNSO on a variety of issues. It also
> underlines the lack of appreciation of how different and diverse the
> GNSO is compared with most other SO’s. That’s something we need to work
> hard to change at every opportunity.
> 
>  
> 
> Tony
> 
>  
> 
> *From:*owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of
> *john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> *Sent:* 29 May 2014 16:40
> *To:* Avri Doria; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> *Subject:* RE: Re: [council] Enhancing ICANN Accountability | ICANN -
> Proposed Next Steps for the Process
> 
>  
> 
> Avri,
> 
>  
> 
> Now it is a party.  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 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.
> 
>  
> 
> If I were Fadi, I'd want to do the same thing.  It makes life neater and
> makes decisions more easily reached.  But that is not the way we have
> and ought to work.
> 
>  
> 
> My view.
> 
>  
> 
> Berard
> 
>  
> 
>     --------- Original Message ---------
> 
>     Subject: Re: [council] Enhancing ICANN Accountability | ICANN -
>     Proposed Next Steps for the Process
>     From: "Avri Doria" <avri@xxxxxxx <mailto:avri@xxxxxxx>>
>     Date: 5/29/14 8:14 am
>     To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> 
>     Hi,
> 
>     On 29-May-14 10:55, john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>     <mailto:john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>     > By setting the agenda on a question of "4 or 5" we miss the larger
>     point
>     > of empowering the muilti-stakeholder, consensus-driven, bottom-up
>     > process. If that is too messy a place for the IANA contract to reside
>     > (which, I think, is Fadi's goal in all of this), then so be it.
>     >
> 
> 
>     I think that while there is support for a multistakeholder process,
>     there is far less support for, or agreement on, a bottom-up model.
> 
>     I believe senior management has more a representative model in mind.
>     For example according to the by-laws, we elect Jonathan as the chair of
>     the GNSO, he therefore speaks for the GNSO when he wears his Chair of
>     the GNSO hat. Obviously he can't be the spokesperson in everything, so
>     then the GNSO council should be able elect someone else to be the
>     representative for the issue under discussion. On the case of the IANA
>     committee, it is believed, we should be able to elect 2 people to
>     represent us.
> 
>     That is, they expect us to be able to elect representatives.
> 
>     On the other had, we have varying degrees of trust of elected
>     representatives. Some want to keep the power as close to the bottom as
>     they can, which is incompatible with entrusting representatives, and
>     they want to bring every issue back to vox populi.
> 
>     Both the representative model and the 'check with the people before very
>     decision' model are multistakeholder, and both can even be described as
>     bottom-up, but one is a lot more bottom-up than the other.
> 
>     The problem with comparative body count for the committees, is they are
>     offering a representative model whereas many in GNSO seem to want a more
>     of an ambassadorial model where the 'ambassador' to the group from each
>     SG has to be in constant contact with her capital before she can speak.
> 
>     avri
>