John,

If you're not going to be in Dakar, then let me try and provide you with an answer onlist. Unfortunately, I won't be back online myself for a few days, but we can pick up the discussion after that.

I think the Council brings together the most diverse groups within the ICANN universe. Are we sure we either expect, or want, those groups to be uniform in their opinions and responses? I think the Council's diversity of views should, and need, to be expressed. That is where our strengths lie. In the fact that stakeholders from very different horizons can pool together their knowledge, experience, and opinions to steer the GNSO as a whole towards a common goal that best serves the GNSO (and the wider Internet) community. At SG and constituency level, it is quite normal to have only one side of the story expressed. Each group is looking after its own community, and that's the way it should be. But the Council is the only place where those different views can be benchmarked against other groups' views and mutual progress achieved. That makes the Council very unique within ICANN, and vital.

I feel strongly that the Chair must serve as a guide in this process. The GNSO Council works according to very exact procedures and rules. Rules, in fact, that we have just spent years, and expended huge amounts of effort and resources, honing under a new structure. Over the past year, as Chair, I have done my best to be the custodian of those rules.

I would argue, for example, that part of the answer to your question lies in using the existing processes in the ICANN bylaws for gTLD policy development. Too often people think they can short cut the process, or use a better process  - and in nearly all cases the short cut ends up taking longer, due the time used in discussing process.

If we use the process we have - then the time can be focussed on the substantial issues. My job as Chair has been, and will continue to be if the Council so wishes, to make sure we use our processes, and use them well.

Thanks for your question,

Stéphane

Le 15 oct. 2011 à 09:08, Adrian Kinderis a écrit :


Mind you JB, agreeing to disagree is not necessarily a bad thing given the diversity of backgrounds and perspectives in the Council.

Adrian Kinderis

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of john@crediblecontext.com
Sent: Friday, 14 October 2011 10:19 PM
To: Stéphane_Van_Gelder
Cc: council@gnso.icann.org; Glen_de_Saint_Géry
Subject: RE: [council] Re: A question to the candidate



Dakar is fine, as long as we do not settle for a "we'll just agree to
disagree" conclusion.


I will not be on hand, so just imagine I am there to keep poking at this
matter.


Cheers,


Berard

 -------- Original Message --------
Subject: [council] Re: A question to the candidate
From: Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder@indom.com>
Date: Fri, October 14, 2011 9:41 am
To: <john@crediblecontext.com>
Cc: "council@gnso.icann.org" <council@gnso.icann.org>,
"Glen_de_Saint_Géry" <Glen@icann.org>


Thanks John. I am unsure whether you expect an answer by email or would
prefer that we "stockpile" this question for the "Q&A with candidate"
session that we have planned in Dakar?

I would think that the second option is better, as it means everyone
can join the discussion as and when they wish.

Also, as I am leaving for Dakar tomorrow and will probably be out of
email range for a few days, if anyone else has any questions that would
mean I could address them all at the same time, which might work better.

Would you be OK with this?

Stéphane



Le 14 oct. 2011 à 17:16, <john@crediblecontext.com> a écrit :

I forgot to switch my earlier email to plain text. Sorry all.

Berard


Stephane,


As you think about how you might approach a second term as Chair of
the
Council, I wonder if you could give us your thoughts on this:


In the “Discussion Paper on Next Steps to Produce a New Form of the
RAA” sent to the Council yesterday by Kurt Pritz, is this:


"We also note that disagreements in the GNSO Council regarding the
process over the last year have resulted in delays in considering the
substantive issues."


This is not the first time or the softest way in which we have heard
this criticism of delay and disharmony. How would you move to solve
it?



Cheers,


Berard