It's increasingly difficult (not to mention expensive) for people to be away for an entire week, up to three times a year. As such, I support any move that will reduce the time, travel and cost commitment, especially as the Friday Board sessions have really become "non events" (for lack of a better word). Reinstating them without a more probing analysis as to how to ensure that (1) the Board discussions are more transparent and open than they have become; and (2) ICANN meetings are as efficient and effective as they can be would, in my view, be pointless.


Perhaps we can ask Steve whether this move is part of a commitment by the Board towards these objectives and, if so, what else is being considered. As such, Wolf-Ulrich's question as to the origin/impetus of this move is a good one.


Cheers

Mary


Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law
Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP
Chair, Graduate IP Programs
UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH 03301USAEmail: mary.wong@law.unh.eduPhone: 1-603-513-5143Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.phpSelected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584
As of August 30, 2010, Franklin Pierce Law Center has affiliated with the University of New Hampshire and is now known as the University of New Hampshire School of Law. Please note that all email addresses have changed and now follow the convention: firstname.lastname@law.unh.edu. For more information on the University of New Hampshire School of Law, please visit law.unh.edu


>>>

From:

William Drake <william.drake@uzh.ch>

To:

Stéphane Van Gelder<stephane.vangelder@indom.com>

CC:

"council@gnso.icann.org GNSO" <council@gnso.icann.org>

Date:

5/3/2012 10:35 AM

Subject:

Re: [council] Proposed Agenda Item - Elimination of Friday Public Board Meetings

I'd have preferred that they make better use of Fridays rather than eliminate it.


Bill



On May 3, 2012, at 3:16 PM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:


Thanks Wolf and Wolfgang for your comments.


If there is more decision on this, could I urge others to chime in so that we can ascertain whether a full agenda item is needed on this, or whether the discussion can be had on the list.


Thanks,


Stéphane Van Gelder
Directeur Général / General manager
INDOM Group NBT France

----------------
Head of Domain Operations

Group NBT


Le 3 mai 2012 à 11:38, <KnobenW@telekom.de> <KnobenW@telekom.de> a écrit :


My personal view on this is mixed.

 

Saving of time and money is always preferable - but not at the expense of transparency when the board is taking decisions at public meetings. SO/AC/BC reporting could be removed by providing them in written form only.

But it makes a difference

- to hold "a one-hour session following the Public Forum on Thursday afternoon..... and outline what they have heard during the week from their meetings with AC/SOs and their constituent parts and identify those matters they expect to be dealing with...", to decide upon during non-public board sessions and at the following ICANN Public Meeting to "report to the community on what they have dealt with since Prague"

or

- to discuss and take decisions publicly

 

I'm curious to know whether this board decision was based on the survey ("Improving Global Engagement") ICANN started in March where they solicited community input on improving e.g. effectiveness. For me the Public Meetings - with all their facets - are per se the highlights of global engagement.


Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich 

 


Von: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Stéphane Van Gelder
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 2. Mai 2012 22:52
An: Margie Milam
Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Council
Betreff: Re: [council] Proposed Agenda Item - Elimination of Friday Public Board Meetings


Thanks Margie, much appreciated.


In the meantime, let me add some more context for the benefit of the Council.


In CR, Steve asked me what I would think of the idea of shortening the ICANN meeting week by doing away with the Friday. This was floated to me as just an idea. I was given no indication that it would be implemented one day, let alone in Prague. And I was given no details on its possible implementation.


When Steve discussed this with me, I did not get the sense that he meant to do a public consultation on this decision. This was a private conversation and not one where it was at any time made clear to me that I should break Steve's confidence and discuss this publicly. That is why I did not discuss this here.


This week's announcement has, as Jeff says, generated some negative comments. Those that I have seen are that this decision was taken without any consultation and that doing away with the Friday Board meeting is detrimental to transparency.


My own personal view is otherwise. I believe that cutting the Friday out of the ICANN week is a step in the right direction towards reducing costs and time challenges for meeting participants, including the Board. Over the past year, I have seen the Board work hard to improve its transparency. We now have detailed rationale on votes at every meeting and explanations of the issues being considered. So I am comfortable with giving the Board a little of the benefit of the doubt in trying out new ideas such as this one.


Stéphane




Le 2 mai 2012 à 22:10, Margie Milam a écrit :


Hi Stéphane,

I’ll follow up internally to provide the requested information.

Best regards,

Margie

From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2012 2:08 PM
To: council@gnso.icann.org Council
Subject: Re: [council] Proposed Agenda Item - Elimination of Friday Public Board Meetings

Is someone from Staff able to provide the requested information, whether it be on the list or during the next Council meeting?

Stéphane

Le 2 mai 2012 à 20:38, Neuman, Jeff a écrit :



All,

Given the announcement yesterday of the elimination of the public Board meetings at ICANN, I would like to put this on the Council agenda as a discussion item.  I would like it if someone from ICANN that is familiar with the rationale behind this decision could give us an explanation of how and why that decision was made. 

Also, if the ICANN Board can unilaterally declare that all of its meetings will be private, does this set a precedent for its Supporting Organizations to do the same thing?  I have not reviewed the bylaws with respect to the Council in a little bit, but does the Council have the discretion to declare that it will no longer hold a public GNSO Council meeting at ICANN?

I think there has been enough disapproval expressed within the community in the last day or so that at least merits a discussion of this decision at the Council level.


Thanks.

Jeffrey J. Neuman 
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs
21575 Ridgetop Circle, Sterling, VA 20166
Office: +1.571.434.5772  Mobile: +1.202.549.5079  Fax: +1.703.738.7965 / jeff.neuman@neustar.biz  / www.neustar.biz