---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com> Date: Mar 21, 2014 9:33 PM Subject: [Bc-excomm] Posting from a submission I made/on 360 review/after comments I made individually/In Dakar To: "bc-excomm@icann.org" <bc-excomm@icann.org>, Steve Metalitz <met@msk.com>, Kristina Rosette <krosette@cov.com>, Tony Holmes <tonyarholmes@btinternet.com>, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> Cc:
https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/30345022/360 Input into CEO Succession and ongoing Feedback - chairs.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1321840895000&api=v2
Dear colleagues
I went back and researched earlier information on this. It was first raised in Cartegena, but I can't find the transcript from what I said there.
However, after my comments, as an individual, in Dakar, I was invited by the Board to submit further written comments. I did share it with the other Chairs, at that time, as in informal idea.
The submission I then sent is attached, and is dated Nov 13, 2011.
I am not suggesting it in way is a shared view by anyone in the BC at this time, and it is not exactly what John raised.
I also am of the emerging view that 360 review is needed for Board, not just CEO/President.
The self appraisals of Board and Chair are posted for 2010, 2011, and 2012. There is no published 2013 reviews that I can find, but I am told by two board members that they were completed.
I do not know about 360 review of CEO -- e.g. whether it has been done by the Board, or if it is public, if it was done.
I personally think that the ideas of 360 input deserves discussion in the SGs this week, but I would 'probably' be of the view that it is not a GNSO Council function, but for instance, the composition I originally proposed could be up to 3 participants from the Council, plus the Constituency Chairs/or a designee made by the Excomms of the Constituency/SGs.
This is just an idea that I wanted to remind all that I did forward, but it was some time ago...
Of course, we had a different CEO at that time, but I seem to detect a similar concern about how to better encourage linkage between leadership and community/stakeholders on expectations and feedback.
Many of us will have participated in, whether having our teams use 360 review processes, or in 360 reviews of our own executive leaders. It is not a panecea.
In any case, I hope this is helpful.
Marilyn Cade