To my knowledge, which may be limited, there is no precedent nor
reason for the Council chair to be taking input from Constituency chairs, as
opposed to Councilors. If a letter is contemplated to come from the Council
chair, then this discussion needs to happen on the Council list. Personally
speaking, I don’t see this as a high priority for Council or the Council chair
to be addressing on such a ‘rush’ basis. I haven’t noted any more than two
members of the BC stating this is a significant issue, either.
From:
owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf
Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Friday, July 16, 2010 7:04 AM
To: Marilyn Cade; Wolf Knoben; Tony Holmes; glen@icann.org;
liaison6c@gnso.icann.org; Steve Metalitz; cdigangi@inta.org;
sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com; Harris, Anthony; excomm@bizconst.org
Cc: council@gnso.icann.org
Subject: [council] RE: EXTENSION OF DEADLINE - Call for Applicants for a
Position of Volunteer Review Team Member - 29 July 2010
With the exception of the request that applications be submitted
by Monday which has since been withdrawn and with the condition that I see the
actual wording of the letter and have opportunity to suggest edits, I see no
reason why I could not sign the letter. I do believe we need to make at
least two points in addition to what Marilyn suggests: 1) A change such as this
extension where the deadline impacts time sensitive processes of any of the
organizations must receive affirmative support from those organizations before
it is done; 2) In the case of the GNSO, it is totally inappropriate for the
GNSO to be asked to compromise a process that it has designed to be as
bottom-up as possible in a compressed timeframe without input from the GNSO.
Chuck
From: Marilyn Cade
[mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, July 16, 2010 8:19 AM
To: Wolf Knoben; Tony Holmes; Gomes, Chuck; glen@icann.org;
liaison6c@gnso.icann.org; Steve Metalitz; cdigangi@inta.org;
sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com; Harris, Anthony; excomm@bizconst.org
Cc: council@gnso.icann.org
Subject: EXTENSION OF DEADLINE - Call for Applicants for a Position of
Volunteer Review Team Member - 29 July 2010
Dear
Colleagues
I
am disquieted by the confusion introduced by ICANN into the RT processes.
It was undoubtedly well meaning, but has disrupted already stressed
processes.
I
would think that it would be clear to ICANN's senior leadership and Board, and
staff that fulfilling, with excellence, the AoC, and related Review Team
processes, is incredibly important and significant to ICANN's credibility.
I spoke at the public forum at Brussels that the "AOC document was
heard around the world". and I meant that. The work of the RTs is an
underpinning to implementing an accountable and responsible ICANN that is built
upon self review, and self correction, where needed.
The
community [meaning all of us] is struggling with its own work loads, and
its own day to day challenges of delivering services, products, or just
'running the Internet'. Or being users of the Internet, and relying
on the DNS, or other functions that ICANN is coordinating. The amount of
pro bono contributions of time and resources from all stakeholders into ICANN
is phenomenal, and is what makes ICANN work, and supports its success. It is
challenging to tell that ICANN itself fully understands how to work with the
fuller community, or quite has a grasp on how the organization should support
the work of the community, who after all, are ICANN. I do
not consider any stakeholder a 'volunteer', since standards organizations and
associations and NGOs do not consider the work of their communities
'voluntary'. They survive because of that work and active involvement of the
community, supported by staff at all levels, and by a Board that respects the
value of broad, strong, diverse community support.
Having
said all that, I am disappointed, like all of you about the confusion that has
been introduced into the process.
I
do not want to dwell on that, OR waste time in chastisement or arguments.
Let's
try to accept that this is a 'pilot' approach to developing the RTS, insist
that there be an end of year discussion, which we should contribute to, if not
drive, on how such processes will work within this SO, collaborate with our
colleagues in other SOs and ACs, and be 'better' in 2011.
How
about a solution? Or at least an approach:
I had a call with Chuck Gomes last night, and want to thank him for his
time.
I
am going to encourage the business community to submit their nominations on
Monday. I cannot guarantee that 'works', since the business wide community is
not necessarily following the machinations of the ICANN processes, ever
"winding" as they are now. And, I must have taken my role as
CSG alternate/BC Chair too seriously, and promptly widely distributed the
extension.
Extensions
are in general good things, and I know that busy people welcomed the
notice.
However,
Wolf, as usual, is offering a sane proposal. BUT, we need to ask for a
consistent treatment. We can't have different rules for different
stakeholders.
I
propose that we 1) cajole the community to submit by Monday, noting that
there is an ICANN announced extension but that in our leadership capacities
within the GNSO, we urge submissions by Monday: 2) jointly send a letter
to the selectors, copied to full Board, noting that the announcement[of
extension introduced confusion; noting that there remains a strong
commitment on the part of the GNSO community that the number of reps
to the RT should be a minimum of 4 from GNSO, cite the reasons there [work
load; diversity; broadened perspectives; respect for the bottom up and diverse
nature of the GNSO community]; and note that we can only function with an
extension that is equally applied to all RT nominees.
I
would propose that the Council's chair sign it; Chairs of constituencies
should sign it. Send it Monday. Copy full Board, and Chair of GAC.
I
have copied the BC Executive Committee on this email. I do not have posting
privileges to the Council.
Marilyn
Cade
BC
Chair