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 ICANNhow 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.mikeyOn Mar 1, 2014, at 4:51 AM, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info> wrote:Perhaps me too.
Persuasive input.
Thanks Avri
On 1 Mar 2014 10:15, "Avri Doria" <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 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>
Date: 2/21/14 3:31 am
To: "Council" <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 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>
> Date: 2/20/14 1:01 pm
> To: "Mike O'Connor" <mike@haven2.com>, "John Berard"
> <john@crediblecontext.com>
> Cc: "Council" <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>>
> Date: Thursday, February 20, 2014 at 13:35
> To: John Berard <john@crediblecontext.com
> <mailto:john@crediblecontext.com>>
> Cc: GNSO Council List <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> 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, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: 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, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)