All. My motivation for lighting this fuse was to bring into the light of day a discussion of how ICANN has changed during Fadi's tenure and whether is has been good or bad for the organization and the policy development process. It is clear that there is noise from every corner of the community about its disenfranchisement. The tools at my disposal (other than moral suasion) are those available to me as a Councillor. We can put it on our weekend agenda, we can put it on the agenda for the public meeting (promoting both to the full GNSO), we can construct some sort of callfor an issue report or we can move that the initiative be official (though we don't likely have standing). I have no commitment to any one approach, but I am committed to the discussion So, how best do we make that happen? Berard --------- Original Message --------- Subject: RE: [council] Crowdsourcing a bi-ennial performance review of the ICANN CEO From: "Novoa, Osvaldo" <onovoa@antel.com.uy> Date: 3/1/14 5:39 am To: "Amr Elsadr" <aelsadr@egyptig.org>, "Mike O'Connor" <mike@haven2.com> Cc: "Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson@afilias.info>, "Avri Doria" <avri@acm.org>, "Council" <council@gnso.icann.org> Hi, I've been following this discussion for a while and I'm a bit doubtful on it being directed to Fahdi directly, I think that the way ICANN is run today is due in great part to Fahdi's initiative but with the Boards support. Perhaps the review should be more general aim at how ICANN has been operating these last years without focusing it almost exclusively on Fahdi's term. Best regards, Osvaldo ________________________________________ De: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [owner-council@gnso.icann.org] En nombre de Amr Elsadr [aelsadr@egyptig.org] Enviado el: sábado, 01 de marzo de 2014 11:34 a.m. Para: Mike O'Connor CC: Jonathan Robinson; Avri Doria; Council Asunto: Re: [council] Crowdsourcing a bi-ennial performance review of the ICANN CEO Hi, I share Mikey's concerns about this being a Board-initiated action. I tend to also agree that the AC/SO leadership approach is the most suitable one for this endeavour. A little nudge from us to that effect wouldn't be a bad idea, perhaps in the form of a letter from Jonathan on behalf of the Council, urging the AC/SO leaders to launch a chartering effort for a CCWG to perform this review. I just don't see this as a motion that we need a Councillor to make, have it seconded then finally voted on. I've only been following Council activities for a couple of years, but I tend to feel that that is not the purpose they're meant to serve. Thanks. Amr On Mar 1, 2014, at 1:27 PM, Mike O'Connor <mike@haven2.com><mailto:mike@haven2.com>> wrote: i like the idea of a review by the community. i was uncomfortable with the motion that John wrote, which a) seemed too GNSO-focused and b) launched a review without first taking some time to describe what the goals/process would be. i also like the idea of nudging this toward the Board, or some other body that speaks for all the AC/SOs. the trouble i see with that idea is that the Board may very well come back and say - we already give Fadi performance feedback, why are you coming to us with this? - we don't speak for the community, we tend to the larger interests of ICANN how about this for an alternative approach… what if Jonathan and the other AC/SO leaders put together their own “Montevideo Statement” (after consultation with their respective gangs) that assessed their view of the current situation and, among other things, called for the chartering and launch of such a review, independent of the Board? this reminds me a bit of the climate that led to the creation of the DSSA - which was consciously chartered as a CCWG. the Board eventually screwed the DSSA up, but we got a lot done until they did. maybe we wire this one up a little more tightly, to avoid Board meddling this time around. mikey On Mar 1, 2014, at 4:51 AM, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info><mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>> wrote: Perhaps me too. Persuasive input. Thanks Avri On 1 Mar 2014 10:15, "Avri Doria" <avri@acm.org><mailto:avri@acm.org>> wrote: On 01-Mar-14 10:33, Avri Doria wrote: Hi, I have been informed that sometimes my first reaction can be harsh. This is a failing I have spent many years trying to reform, since once I hear the other sides of an issue, my perception frequently softens a wee bit and even . Saw the incomplete sentence: and even causes me to change my mind on occasion. Unfortunately sometimes I type more quickly than I self-repress and I am grateful for the intervention of friends who warm me when my harshness threshold goes too high. This makes me think that perhaps you are right and this is a good pilot of the newly recommended modality. It would be helpful to see how this mechanism could work on issues in a community such as ours. I would be interested in possibly seconding a motion, if we can phrase it in the form of a request that the ICANN board initiate such an exercise. Perhaps they could even request that Beth, or some from her branded institute for which we have seen multiple notices, lead us in the activity to show us how it is done. Of course, the board would not be bound by the outcome, but if they initiated the process, they might at least consider it as seriously as they consider the panoply of other advisory panel recommendations. I think the exercise may be rather important in that it is only the most active of voices that we hear on the subject of our leadership. And whether we love Fadi or not as our leader, or even believe we need a leader of his caliber and vision, it is a topic where we need to hear the broader voice of the community before we know whether the community favors an extended mandate. Thanks you for suggesting this, and apologies for my initial pooh-poohing. avri On 21-Feb-14 17:21, john@crediblecontext.com<mailto:john@crediblecontext.com> wrote: Avri, Note my earlier email. It may be that no one will hear, but that does not mean we should not ask. Berard --------- Original Message --------- Subject: Re: [council] Crowdsourcing a bi-ennial performance review of the ICANN CEO From: "Avri Doria" <avri@acm.org><mailto:avri@acm.org>> Date: 2/21/14 3:31 am To: "Council" <council@gnso.icann.org><mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Hi, Interesting idea, but what makes you think anyone on the Board would care what the crowd had to say. They barely care about what the duly constituted SOs, ACs or Review Teams have to say beyond what the by-laws force them to care about. Now, if we can get National government ministers to crowd source the review, maybe there is a chance they will pay attention. avri On 20-Feb-14 22:11, john@crediblecontext.com<mailto:john@crediblecontext.com> wrote:
James, Yes, we should include all, but the ball has to start rolling somewhere. I figure we can do that. Berard
--------- Original Message --------- Subject: Re: [council] Crowdsourcing a bi-ennial performance review of the ICANN CEO From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com><mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>> Date: 2/20/14 1:01 pm To: "Mike O'Connor" <mike@haven2.com><mailto:mike@haven2.com>>, "John Berard" <john@crediblecontext.com><mailto:john@crediblecontext.com>> Cc: "Council" <council@gnso.icann.org><mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>>
Also think this is worth of discussion, but should include other SO/ACs in an effort to provide a “360” review. J. From: Mike O'Connor <mike@haven2.com><mailto:mike@haven2.com> ><mailto:mike@haven2.com><mailto:mike@haven2.com>>> Date: Thursday, February 20, 2014 at 13:35 To: John Berard <john@crediblecontext.com><mailto:john@crediblecontext.com> <mailto:john@crediblecontext.com><mailto:john@crediblecontext.com>>> Cc: GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org><mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> <mailto:council@gnso.icann.org><mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>>> Subject: Re: [council] Crowdsourcing a bi-ennial performance review of the ICANN CEO hi John, i sense a certain irony in your reference to crowdsourcing, but i went ahead and circulated your proposal amongst the ISPCP - initial reactions are positive. i personally think it's a great idea. mikey
On Feb 20, 2014, at 10:28 AM, john@crediblecontext.com<mailto:john@crediblecontext.com> <mailto:john@crediblecontext.com><mailto:john@crediblecontext.com>> wrote:
All, I think the next meeting of the ICANN, scheduled for London, marks two years of Fadi Chehade's term as the organization's President and CEO. In light of the interest driven by the Strategy Panels in what is called crowd sourcing, I wonder if we should consider instigating a performance review of the executive using that method. We can announce the initiative in Singapore and prepare a report for the London meeting. The standing for the Council is the growing executive influence over policy, looking no further than the rise of appointed strategy panels in lieu of community-based working groups. What is your view? Cheers, Berard
PHONE: 651-647-6109<tel:651-647-6109>, FAX: 866-280-2356<tel:866-280-2356>, WEB: www.haven2.com<http://www.haven2.com/> <http://www.haven2.com><http://www.haven2.com/>>, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com<http://www.haven2.com/>, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) El presente correo y cualquier posible archivo adjunto está dirigido únicamente al destinatario del mensaje y contiene información que puede ser confidencial. Si Ud. no es el destinatario correcto por favor notifique al remitente respondiendo anexando este mensaje y elimine inmediatamente el e-mail y los posibles archivos adjuntos al mismo de su sistema. Está prohibida cualquier utilización, difusión o copia de este e-mail por cualquier persona o entidad que no sean las específicas destinatarias del mensaje. ANTEL no acepta ninguna responsabilidad con respecto a cualquier comunicación que haya sido emitida incumpliendo nuestra Política de Seguridad de la Información This e-mail and any attachment is confidential and is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not intended recipient please inform the sender immediately, answering this e-mail and delete it as well as the attached files. Any use, circulation or copy of this e-mail by any person or entity that is not the specific addressee(s) is prohibited. ANTEL is not responsible for any communication emitted without respecting our Information Security Policy.