That is interesting, Ken, but of course,
the issues that the bylaws change is addressing is quite another matter, given
the in-depth discussions that took place at
Given that the bylaw changes were posted
within the 7 days required notice…. It seems to me that this is a very
different issue altogether.
It will be helpful to hear what others on
the Council think, though.
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org
[mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On
Behalf Of Ken Stubbs
Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2005
12:33 PM
To: Marilyn Cade
Cc: council@gnso.icann.org; Olof
Nordling; Kurt Pritz; John Jeffrey; liz.williams@icann.org
Subject: Re: [council] GNSO
Review: Phase One Paper
Fellow council members...
On a parallel track, I share similiar concerns about adequate time
necessary to adequately consider another item recently placed on the
agenda. Our Consitiuency has had very limited time to consider the
proposed by-law changes which are being placed before the council for our
recommendation to the Board. we have not yet even had the opportunity to
deliberate & discusss these changes proposed nor have we had the benefit of
any legal opinions with respect to both process as well as impact etc..
>From a practical perspective, I believe we are all aware that the month of
August is historically the time when many are on holiday and, as such,
not available to commit themselves to the time necessary to have
adequate dialogues regarding items of this nature..
i would certainly hope (as well as recommend), that the council consider
providing the various constituencies an adequate time to discuss the proposed
changes and provide "informed"
direction to their council representatives prior to taking any action.
Ken Stubbs
Marilyn Cade wrote:
Under our agenda, posted 7 days before the
Council meeting, as required, we have a topic addressing the timeline for work
on the ToR.
That is what I propose that Council
address: reviewing and reaching agreement on a detailed working timeline.
Unfortunately, the staff submission which I
will hereafter refer to as “staff working paper”, which contains
the proposed timeline did not meet the required 7 day period. That is
regrettable. Having said that, it seems reasonable to consider this a delayed
contribution and to work from the proposed time line, which is the topic
we have on our Council agenda.
Thus, we should focus in first on Item F
on the staff working paper/delayed contribution, which provides a basic
timeline. I have concerns about some of the dates proposed and questions about
the lack of interaction between the Council and Board; I’ve made a
proposal about the latter in this email. While we can have further discussion
online, it is my hope to have the discussion interactively on the call among
the Councilors.
As to the substance of the staff working
paper, having received it, it is now important to have sufficient time to both
discuss it, and to carefully consider in an interactive discussion, the
substance of Item D. I am not comfortable that we can fully undertake that in
Thursday’s call. We have other substantive issues already on the agenda
that require attention, and we may need to undertake a sub-group focus with
reporting back to the full Council, on completing further input and work on the
ToR. And, I would expect we will need to work on this in between this
Council meeting and the September meeting. For instance, I am not comfortable
with “information papers” that the Council hasn’t seen being
sent to the Board. Thus, we need to provide staff sufficient access to the
Council, or a subset of the Council, to provide the needed ongoing input and
comment.
And, to address Ken’s often
expressed concerns, input does not equal micromanagement. J
My comments below are to provide further
background to fellow councilors regarding additional materials that we need in
order to fulfill our responsibilities in the development of the ToR “with
the ICANN staff and Board” and to request that these materials/or a
response be provided for the Council meeting.
the development of the timing of the gNSO
‘review’ seems to be based on a decision by the Board after
discussions that have not been shared with Council. Regardless of the
date the decision was reached by Board, or the rationale, that information is useful
and even necessary background to Council. Thus, since the Board decided to
prioritize the review of the gNSO above one that is required by the bylaws of a
sister organization, there may be discussions, minutes, or even staff
recommendations or board member concerns that should be shared with the Council
itself, not just the staff.
Council should have access to information regarding discussion,
presentations, or any materials shared with the Board that led to the
recommendation to focus on gNSO review as a priority. Those should be provided
on Thursday’s meeting, or a time determined when they will be available.
This may be something very simple -- a board discussion on DATE, staff comments
provided which addressed a, b. c… etc. If the discussions were informal,
then a summary from staff of the discussions should be sufficient. Having
an understanding of the perceptions, concerns, and interests of the Board in
supporting this prioritization is important for Council in order to ensure an
effective ToR.
3) the
resolution provides for “preparing with the ICANN staff and Board
“… thus, I recommend that we, as Council, invite the Board to
appoint a few board members, or to seek volunteer Board members, to
participate with us in the work of developing the ToR, of course, and it goes
without saying, always
supported by staff in this process.
Involvement
in this should not be extraordinarily time consuming for the Board members, and
should result in improved understanding within the Board of the views expressed
by the Council and the perspectives of the SO.
Further,
I recommend that we plan accordingly, and reach agreement now, with the Board,
that Council will present the ToR, supported by the staff, in a joint
Board/Council discussion in VC.
It seems obvious that we should be working somewhat interactively
with at least a subset of the Board, before VC, in order to avoid a disconnect
of perspectives and to work through any areas of concern. I think we all are
committed to increasing as appropriate how the Council represents itself
directly in interaction and interpretation of the Council’s input, while
relying upon staff for support for Council’s work.
4) I
call fellow Councilors attention to other work that is related that must be
addressed as well:
As all
will recall, the bylaws called for a review of the Council. This was completed,
with several outstanding recommendations, which we need to prioritize as work
items to discuss and schedule how to address. Those items should be a priority.
They should be specifically referenced in the working draft background
document of the staff.
On
Thursday, in the discussion of the timeline, we should discuss whether to
include/incorporate these items in the ToR, or merely note that they are work
in progress, and ensure that they are indeed work in progress, what the
tracking is of progress, and what steps remain to be taken to address them.
Again, I ask that staff’s supporting documents identify the work items,
address where we are in those areas, Council can then determine its proposed
action to conclude this work, either separately, or in conjunction with the ToR
and review.
Should
Council prefer to have parallel tracks of work, then this should just be noted
in the ToR, so that in the review undertaken, the independent entity is guided
by an awareness that there is work in progress in areas that have impact upon
the SO.
One final comment. When we say
“ICANN”, we mean the collectiveness of all the community. When we
say ICANN staff, or ICANN Board, or ICANN gNSO, then we are speaking of a
subset. I notice in the staff working paper that there is a reference in 3, to
whether “ICANN is satisfied with the advice”. I confess I
don’t know who is meant in that particular reference to
“ICANN”. If it is the ICANN Board, then we should spell that out.
If it is the “ICANN staff”, then spell that out; if it is the full
community, then of course it is appropriate to use “ICANN” here.
I suspect from personal interactions with
some board members, that this is actually a reference to questions from the
Board, including the Advisory Committee liaisons. That is quite important to
understand, in any case, and given how ICANN [the full community] is maturing
and evolving and how significant the work/policy items are that it addresses,
is quite to be expected that such a question would arise. However, if the
question is specific, as well, it is important to understand that and to consider
how to address it.
I will comment on the tone that we should
seek to achieve in the ToR, and in the review itself. Having spent many
years as a manager—and an executive with reporting staff, and having been
“managed” myself by many seriously committed executives, first in
government, and then in private industry, I have a view that
“reviews” are to be used as ways to achieve improvement, not
isolation of problems for the purposes of criticism. When one does a
performance review, the goals are to help to improve performance, even of top
performers in an organization. Organizations often undertake self review, and
engage in Strategic Planning for that very purpose; they identify things that
can be improved, and they put the processes in place to improve.
We undertook such an extensive review of
the entirety of ICANN not so long ago in the Evolution and Reform process and
we decided, as a broad ICANN community to make several changes. We are now in
the midst of institutionalizing and improving the performance of ICANN, based
on the changes made at that time… and in this review, I would hope that
we are mindful of the very recent changes that the organization undertook and
focus in on continuing improvements, not revolutionary change. I believe we have
committed to, as a community, evolutionary and ongoing change. The review of
the gNSO should reflect that as a core principle.
Best regards,
Marilyn Cade
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org]
On Behalf Of Liz Williams
Sent: Friday, August 12, 2005 5:48
AM
To: council@gnso.icann.org
Subject: [council] GNSO Review:
Phase One Paper
Dear Colleagues
I have attached a paper which reflects the first
phase of consultation and feedback about the GNSO Review Terms of
Reference. I am grateful to everyone who has contributed ideas either by
email or on the telephone.
The GNSO Review is at Item 2 on the agenda for the 18
August call. The agenda item refers specifically to the timeline for the
GNSO Terms of Reference. This paper provides the timeline and more
detailed information.
After the 18 August call, I will prepare an
information paper for distribution to the Board. I will then incorporate
their feedback into a Second Phase paper. You will note that we have
quite tight deadlines to meet the Board’s requirements for notification
of items for the
If you have any further questions or need
clarification on anything my numbers are below or you can email me.
Kind regards.
Liz
Dr Liz Williams
Senior Policy Counselor
ICANN -
Tel: +32 2 234 7874
Fax: +32 2 234 7848
Mob: +61 414 26 9000