[ispcp] Council meeting; ISPCP call

[<KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>]

All,

short summary of yesterday's GNSO council meeting:

- Motion on "best practices" (Zahid Jamil, BC) was deferred
- protection of IOC/RC: no consensus whether and how the WT may continue working, at least for 2nd level protection mechanism; draft letter to the GAC re working results and status still under discussion
- future public board meeting format: cost savings + effectiveness vs transparency; it may be an agenda item for the Public Forum in Prague
- JAS: as staff is "using" (parts of) the JAS WG for support re the implementation of the various JAS recommendation the JAS mandate was discussed in this respect
- ICANN academy: Stéphane will be representing the GNSO on the ICANN academy WG.

Please find the MP3 recording of the GNSO Council teleconference, held on Thursday, 10 May, 2012 at:
http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-council-20120510-en.mp3
on page
http://gnso.icann.org/calendar#may<http://gnso.icann.org/calendar>


Since I'm not sure whether I can participate (fully or in parts) in the ISPCP call next Tuesday I'd like to forward 2 messages to you where input is asked for:

1. ICANN public board meeting format, see letter from Steve Crocker:

Folks (Staff, SO and AC chairs, and Board),
I want to follow up on the announcement that we're wrapping up the ICANN meeting on Thursday evening. We got a lot of feedback expressing concern, some of which will be allayed with more information. Below is a draft of a blog entry I'd like to post as soon as it's been properly coordinated. Please take a look and let me know if there are flaws or missing pieces. (And if you know of someone I should have included in this coordination cycle, pass this on and also let me know.)
If I can get the relevant information re the SO and AC reports, I'll add it in.
Also, please let me know if there are indeed major resolutions in the works that deserve to be dealt with in a public Board meeting. If so, we will need to schedule a public Board meeting and I'll need to adjust the wording of this blog posting.
Thanks,
Steve
==================================================================================================================================================
On April 30 I announced we will wrap up the ICANN meeting on Thursday evening and not use Friday. (Some groups may choose to use Friday for their own meetings; that's fine.) We have received multiple inputs asking for clarification or suggesting this change has some adverse consequences. The announcement was a bit light on details. I wanted to get the decision out so everyone could adjust their travel plans. Now I want to say a bit more about the changes.
In the past, we had three parts to the program on Friday morning -- reports from the Board committees, reports from the chairs of the Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees, and a formal Board meeting. Attendance during all parts of the morning have been very light. There really has not been much actual utility for the community. Also every day of meeting time is expensive, not just to ICANN but also to the community. Like many people, I had been noticing that Friday mornings were not well attended, and it was clear it was time to make a change. Let me now go into a few details, and I will close with a promise that if the changes we're making for Prague are not in the best interests of everyone, we will continue to evolve the schedule.
With respect to our Board meetings, the large majority of the resolutions we approve are the regular pieces of business that are known well in advance. The Board approves these resolutions without fanfare. The substantive work is done via the Supporting Organizations or via staff work, and the work is posted. Once in while there are Board actions that have some controversy or drama. The XXX decision in San Francisco and the decision in Singapore to move forward with the gTLD program are the two recent examples that come to mind. For matters of this import, we will hold a public Board meeting. In Singapore, we did this at the beginning of the week. This was a big improvement and really helped set a positive tone for the entire week. I think this is a good pattern, and I'm inclined to follow this when it's needed. I don't know how often we'll have to do this; I suspect it will be less than half the time.
A closely related aspect of this change is we will no longer be rushing through resolutions based on committee work or inputs during the week. We need to take some time to develop the proper documentation. So, instead of trying to cap the week off with resolutions passed on the basis of the week's work, we will report on what's come up during the week, what happened between the last ICANN meeting and this one, and what we plan to do following this ICANN meeting. This is in accordance with the recommendations of the Accountability and Transparency Review Team, and is consistent with the changes we made some time ago to provide more thorough documentation in the form of a rationale for each resolution. These changes will have the benefit of providing time for careful and considered work on each resolution and better documentation for transparency and accountability.
Our vice chair, Bruce Tonkin, observes:

An example of this approach was on the topic of Conflicts of Interest in Dakar in October 2011. The Board listened to the community during the week, and then in the public session on conflicts Board members gave some feedback to the community on specific measures that would be taken with respect to new gTLDs. After careful review by the legal team and review by Board members, the Board held a meeting on 8 Dec 2011 and passed a resolution on management conflicts for new gTLDs. The Board also passed other resolutions that resulted from the discussion in Dakar.
We have made some related changes in the coordination of Board resolutions and the scheduling of Board meetings. I will report on these changes in a separate posting.
We recognize the community wants to see the Board in action and have the opportunity to interact with the Board. Toward this end, we are making two additional changes. In the opening session on Monday morning, I will include a summary of what has taken place since the last meeting, and on Thursday afternoon the Board will report on what it has heard during the week. The Board will continue to engage eagerly in the public sessions, listening closely to the comments from the community and responding to questions.
At the beginning of this blog I mentioned the reports from the SO and AC chairs and the reports from the Board committees. We are still working out the arrangements for these and I will report separately on the details. The SOs and ACs are the lifeblood of ICANN, and we want to make sure they have greater, not lesser visibility.
Finally, as I noted above, we are working hard to be both more effective and more efficient. If we need to continue to evolve this process, we will.
Thank you.
Steve Crocker
Chair, ICANN Board of Directors


2. ICANN academy WG, draft ideas:


Message 1 to the WG: There should be no discussions on a possible curriculum until there has first been discussion (and consensus among the different community reps in the WG) on whether the academy itself should be created.
GNSO sub-message to message 1:  The GNSO Council agrees the concept of an academy to help newcomers get to grips with the ICANN world is a good idea. But there needs to be clear guidelines on finance, budget and implementation.

Message 2 to the WG: Once it has been determined that the concept of an academy is one that should be pushed forward, is willing to provide background material and support in helping academy attendees understand the intricacies of the GNSO and welcomes any suggestions from the WG on what type of material is needed.


Your feedback is welcome.


Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich