Maria,
This is not so much about complaints (though it is clear that the policy responsibilities of the GNSO in general and its Council in particular are being squeezed by CEO-appointed strategy panels at the top and unmeasured crowdsourcing at the bottom) as it is an attempt to give the community the opportunity to offer its view of the path ICANN has taken in the last two years under Fadi's leadership. There is some irony in using a crowdsourced model (as it is a contentious recommendation of the strategy panel on multi-stakeholder innovation), but it if is a good idea, it is a good idea.
When you consider last year's tumult over policy v. implementation, this year's Internet governance rallies (I note specifically that the upcoming meeting in Brazil has left the long & upstanding ICANN community members ccTLD managers feeling left out) and the expansion of strategy panels (first four, then five and now a bit of a blank check from the Board to the CEO), the Council has reason to ask for community input.
Whether we call it a review of Fadi's performance or a review of how process has changed in the last two years is not relevant, but I see the two as one-in-the-same.
Even if no one hears what is said, I think we ought to ask.
I would be happy to offer a motion to that effect at the Singapore meeting so as to make it an official action (should it pass, of course!).
Cheers,
Berard
--------- Original Message ---------
Subject: Re: Re: [council] Crowdsourcing a bi-ennial performance review of the ICANN CEO
From: "Maria Farrell" <maria.farrell@gmail.com>
Date: 2/21/14 2:06 am
To: "John Berard" <john@crediblecontext.com>
Cc: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com>, "Mike O'Connor" <mike@haven2.com>, "Council" <council@gnso.icann.org>
I think it's an interesting idea - but I also see the risk for it to turn into a free-for-all of national or interest group sections peeved at certain Internet governance developments.
I didn't hear so many complaints from other NCPH side colleagues about 'growing executive influence over policy' during the TCMH debacle, so colour me curious about this initiative, willing to be convinced - subject to a fair methodology that won't be astro-turfed - but also somewhat skeptical of the context and motivation.
Maria