Wolf, Just seen your message after responding to Steve's message in which I explained that I was copying you and Jeff so that you could each get feedback from your respective houses, but that for obvious reasons of confidentiality, I was not sending Steve's message to a public list such as the GNSO's before he says it's final and OK to be released. So I think it's unfortunate that you have just done so. The Council VCs are true representatives of their houses and I think there are times when you should act as direct conduits for any communication coming into the Council to each house. I feel that in order to maintain good levels of trust and cooperation with others, there are times when the VCs should operate in this manner and that is why I ask you both to do in my earlier message. Just wanted to clarify that. Thanks. I am not responding on the actual main part of your message, as I think you are absolutely correct to state your views and engage others. I just wish it had been done as an internal house discussion at this early stage. Thanks, Stéphane Van Gelder Directeur Général / General manager INDOM Group NBT France ---------------- Head of Domain Operations Group NBT Le 11 mai 2012 à 08:21, <KnobenW@telekom.de> <KnobenW@telekom.de> a écrit :
FYI.
I'm in particular concerned with Steve's asking the Sos/ACs for "...major resolutions in the works that deserve to be dealt with in a public Board meeting" although I understand a positive intention to engage the community in the process of establishing the board agenda. However any criteria to evaluate what "indeed" may be of major interest are missing here (e.g. financial, organizational, policy related impact e.a.). Unsatisfying discussions about the rationale may follow. I don't like that the responsibility for the decision to hold a public board meeting is shifted to any SO/AC. To avoid unsatisfying discussions it may be acceptable if the board holds a public meeting in case of at least one (two, three...?) agenda items filed by any AC/SO regardless its assessment.
Best regards Wolf-Ulrich
Von: soac-infoalert-bounces@icann.org [mailto:soac-infoalert-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Steve Crocker Gesendet: Freitag, 11. Mai 2012 01:25 An: Barbara Ann Clay; Rod Beckstrom; Denise Michel; David Olive; Nick Tomasso; Diane Schroeder; Filiz Yilmaz; Christopher Mondini; soac-infoalert@icann.org; Icann-board ICANN Cc: Steve Crocker Betreff: [Soac-infoalert] Draft blog post re Friday Board meetings, SO/AC reports, etc.
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
<ATT00001.c>