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

["Tony Holmes" <tonyarholmes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Avri
Not sure whether you disagree with part of it or all?
But if you can find someone who can faithfully claim to represent all of the 
diverse views of the many GNSO Constituencies on every topic and satisfy all 
parties in doing that, then they're working below their pay grade and would be 
better employed solving world peace.  :-)

Being more serious,  I always have major concerns whenever the GNSO Council 
involves itself in anything outside of generic name policy which is all it was 
set up to address. Speaking for a broad base set of constituents on other 
issues is fraught with problems, which ideally should be tackled by cross 
community WG's that allow ALL of those diverse views to be voiced, rather than 
diluted through a mechanism that was set up to progress a tightly defined 
policy process.

Looks like we have the basis for a good discussion over a beer in London!

Tony

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: 29 May 2014 17:53
To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [council] Enhancing ICANN Accountability | ICANN - Proposed Next 
Steps for the Process


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
>