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

[john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Avri,
 
Pardon the colloquialism at the top of my last email.  As you know, I have a 
tendency to be flip.  But in this case, I find the bylaws quite specific:
 
The GNSO shall consist of:
 
(i) A number of Constituencies, where applicable, organized within the 
Stakeholder Groups as described in Section 5 of this Article;  (ii) Four 
Stakeholder Groups organized within Houses as described in Section 5 of this 
Article;
 (iii) Two Houses within the GNSO Council as described in Section 3(8) of this 
Article; and
 (iv) a GNSO Council responsible for managing the policy development process of 
the GNSO, as described in Section 3 of this Article.
 
 
The bold face above is mine.  The GNSO Council, of course, is but one element 
of the GNSO overall.  It has a chair devoted to keeping we Councillors on 
course, and Jonathan (and Stephane before him and Chuck before him) has done 
the job well.  That is a big job the Council has, but it does not cover 
everything on which the GNSO can have a voice.
 
See you in London!
 
Berard
 
--------- Original Message --------- Subject: Re: [council] Enhancing ICANN 
Accountability | ICANN - Proposed Next Steps for the Process
From: "Avri Doria" <avri@xxxxxxx>
Date: 5/29/14 9:51 am
To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx


 
 
 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