GNSO Council meeting with the AT Review Team
Councillors, The Council chairs have been approached by the Accountability and Transparency Review Team with an enquiry about a possible meeting in Brussels. They told us they are having a public forum session on the Monday afternoon, but that they would also be happy to meet with ACs and SOs directly. They are trying to arrange a meeting with the GNSO SGs, but wanted to know if the Council as a whole was interested in meeting. They are meeting with the Board, the GAC and ALAC on Sunday afternoon and asked whether the GNSO Council could meet with them on Sunday morning. However, it has proven impossible to fit such a meeting into our already very full Brussels agenda without squeezing something else. Therefore, it would be useful to get an idea of whether Councillors think there would be value in meeting with the RT in light of the fact that meetings are already arranged with each SG. In fact, it would also be useful to know which SGs have a meeting planned with the RT. If people do want the Council as a whole to meet with the RT, then the question becomes where can we fit that meeting in our Brussels agenda. On the other hand, if separate SG meetings are being arranged, is there really any need for the Council as a whole to meet with the RT? Stéphane
Councilors, I have been increasingly frustrated at the GNSO Sessions (Saturday and Sunday) of the ICANN Meetings at how they have often been used as a public forum session. Often, these sessions are our only direct access to staff and it is imperative that we, as elected representatives of our Stakeholder Groups, have appropriate time to ask questions and seek clarifications to the many issues before us. I would like to suggest that there be no questions from the floor during these sessions. The GNSO, by definition, is representative of the Community. I would suggest that, should a member of the audience wish to ask a question that they do it through their elected representative or, perhaps, through the Chair (not so sure about this though). This would allow a more structured approach to the questions and also fair allocation and management of time on each topic. I also suggest that each Councilor have placards placed in front of them (doublesided so they can be ) that details both name and representative Stakeholder Group. An audience member could then simply approach the appropriate Councilor and request that a question be asked on their behalf. This would also allow for remote participants to send questions and have their voices heard (albeit through Councilors). I would also like to potentially have allocated seating for the meetings, as seats are often taken up by "members of the public" and Councilors are relegated to the bleachers. It is an official GNSO Council meeting and should be treated as such. Please don't misinterpret the intention here, I am supportive of audience participation. I am just trying to get structure and efficiency to our meetings. I would be happy to hear thoughts on this. Thanks and see you all in Brussels. Adrian Kinderis
Hi Adrian, On Jun 2, 2010, at 2:24 AM, Adrian Kinderis wrote:
I would like to suggest that there be no questions from the floor during these sessions.
When we last had this conversation didn't we decide against draconian measures that would preclude community participation (and were hence poorly received by some) and for some intermediate steps like only Councilors at the table, chair gives preference to Councilor comments and right sizes the time for others, etc? If people think this has not worked sufficiently, wouldn't it be possible to simply have an offline conversation with the most relevant parties saying please respect the following ground rules, and to reiterate these at the outset of meetings? On Jun 2, 2010, at 2:51 AM, Adrian Kinderis wrote:
I'll shout an extra round at the bar on Saturday night to make up for it :)
Hmm...didn't I hear something like this a few meetings ago, didn't materialize... :-) BTW, on the matter of after hour amusement, perhaps I'll pass along something I pointed out to NCSG, might be of interest to some here: On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 1:33 PM, William Drake <william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch> wrote:
Hi
Just an FYI for people who will be attending ICANN Brussels, as with Paris two summers ago, this meeting overlaps with the annual Fete de la Musique held across France, Belgium, Switzerland, etc. Just had a look at the program http://2010.fetedelamusique.be/recherches?tid=&tid_1=All&city=Bruxelles and inter alia Saturday night 19th Toots and the Maytals is playing in the park near the conference site.
Bill
Bill's summary is spot on as far as I can remember. In Nairobi, Adrian had pointed out the need to ensure Councillors get priority at our weekend sessions. As acting Chair at that meeting, I tried to do just that. My impression was that by allowing Councillors to speak first and then opening it to other members of the community, we were able to ensure that these sessions were productive for Councillors while still remaining open and useful for the larger community as well. Stéphane Le 2 juin 2010 à 08:20, William Drake a écrit :
Hi Adrian,
On Jun 2, 2010, at 2:24 AM, Adrian Kinderis wrote:
I would like to suggest that there be no questions from the floor during these sessions.
When we last had this conversation didn't we decide against draconian measures that would preclude community participation (and were hence poorly received by some) and for some intermediate steps like only Councilors at the table, chair gives preference to Councilor comments and right sizes the time for others, etc? If people think this has not worked sufficiently, wouldn't it be possible to simply have an offline conversation with the most relevant parties saying please respect the following ground rules, and to reiterate these at the outset of meetings?
On Jun 2, 2010, at 2:51 AM, Adrian Kinderis wrote:
I'll shout an extra round at the bar on Saturday night to make up for it :)
Hmm...didn't I hear something like this a few meetings ago, didn't materialize... :-)
BTW, on the matter of after hour amusement, perhaps I'll pass along something I pointed out to NCSG, might be of interest to some here:
On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 1:33 PM, William Drake <william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch> wrote:
Hi
Just an FYI for people who will be attending ICANN Brussels, as with Paris two summers ago, this meeting overlaps with the annual Fete de la Musique held across France, Belgium, Switzerland, etc. Just had a look at the program http://2010.fetedelamusique.be/recherches?tid=&tid_1=All&city=Bruxelles and inter alia Saturday night 19th Toots and the Maytals is playing in the park near the conference site.
Bill
Stéphane I wasnt in Nairobi so Ill be interested to see in Brussels how well it actually works. Adrians concerns seem to recur after each meeting and usually from different Councilors too. Take care Terry From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2010 11:37 PM To: William Drake Cc: Adrian Kinderis; council@gnso.icann.org Council Subject: Re: [council] Meeting Protocol for Brussels and beyond... Bill's summary is spot on as far as I can remember. In Nairobi, Adrian had pointed out the need to ensure Councillors get priority at our weekend sessions. As acting Chair at that meeting, I tried to do just that. My impression was that by allowing Councillors to speak first and then opening it to other members of the community, we were able to ensure that these sessions were productive for Councillors while still remaining open and useful for the larger community as well. Stéphane Le 2 juin 2010 à 08:20, William Drake a écrit : Hi Adrian, On Jun 2, 2010, at 2:24 AM, Adrian Kinderis wrote: I would like to suggest that there be no questions from the floor during these sessions. When we last had this conversation didn't we decide against draconian measures that would preclude community participation (and were hence poorly received by some) and for some intermediate steps like only Councilors at the table, chair gives preference to Councilor comments and right sizes the time for others, etc? If people think this has not worked sufficiently, wouldn't it be possible to simply have an offline conversation with the most relevant parties saying please respect the following ground rules, and to reiterate these at the outset of meetings? On Jun 2, 2010, at 2:51 AM, Adrian Kinderis wrote: I'll shout an extra round at the bar on Saturday night to make up for it :) Hmm...didn't I hear something like this a few meetings ago, didn't materialize... :-) BTW, on the matter of after hour amusement, perhaps I'll pass along something I pointed out to NCSG, might be of interest to some here: On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 1:33 PM, William Drake <william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch> wrote: Hi Just an FYI for people who will be attending ICANN Brussels, as with Paris two summers ago, this meeting overlaps with the annual Fete de la Musique held across France, Belgium, Switzerland, etc. Just had a look at the program http://2010.fetedelamusique.be/recherches?tid= <http://2010.fetedelamusique.be/recherches?tid=&tid_1=All&city=Bruxelles> &tid_1=All&city=Bruxelles and inter alia Saturday night 19th Toots and the Maytals is playing in the park near the conference site. Bill
Stéphane, I personally felt comfortable the way you were managing the weekend sessions in Nairobi which means: councillors taking seats at the table and speaking first to the various topics. Time for open discussion was still available and seemed having been taken into schedule account. I would welcome to keep it this way. Regards Wolf-Ulrich _____ Von: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Stéphane Van Gelder Gesendet: Mittwoch, 2. Juni 2010 08:37 An: William Drake Cc: Adrian Kinderis; council@gnso.icann.org Council Betreff: Re: [council] Meeting Protocol for Brussels and beyond... Bill's summary is spot on as far as I can remember. In Nairobi, Adrian had pointed out the need to ensure Councillors get priority at our weekend sessions. As acting Chair at that meeting, I tried to do just that. My impression was that by allowing Councillors to speak first and then opening it to other members of the community, we were able to ensure that these sessions were productive for Councillors while still remaining open and useful for the larger community as well. Stéphane Le 2 juin 2010 à 08:20, William Drake a écrit : Hi Adrian, On Jun 2, 2010, at 2:24 AM, Adrian Kinderis wrote: I would like to suggest that there be no questions from the floor during these sessions. When we last had this conversation didn't we decide against draconian measures that would preclude community participation (and were hence poorly received by some) and for some intermediate steps like only Councilors at the table, chair gives preference to Councilor comments and right sizes the time for others, etc? If people think this has not worked sufficiently, wouldn't it be possible to simply have an offline conversation with the most relevant parties saying please respect the following ground rules, and to reiterate these at the outset of meetings? On Jun 2, 2010, at 2:51 AM, Adrian Kinderis wrote: I'll shout an extra round at the bar on Saturday night to make up for it :) Hmm...didn't I hear something like this a few meetings ago, didn't materialize... :-) BTW, on the matter of after hour amusement, perhaps I'll pass along something I pointed out to NCSG, might be of interest to some here: On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 1:33 PM, William Drake <william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch> wrote: Hi Just an FYI for people who will be attending ICANN Brussels, as with Paris two summers ago, this meeting overlaps with the annual Fete de la Musique held across France, Belgium, Switzerland, etc. Just had a look at the program http://2010.fetedelamusique.be/recherches?tid= <http://2010.fetedelamusique.be/recherches?tid=&tid_1=All&city=Bruxelles> &tid_1=All&city=Bruxelles and inter alia Saturday night 19th Toots and the Maytals is playing in the park near the conference site. Bill
Wolf, That must have worked well at a conference with 20% the usual participation level and no new DAG to bang on about... I think it will be very different in Brussels. Hence my original email. I would love to hear from our Chair and Vice chair on this (not you Stephane!). Adrian Kinderis From: KnobenW@telekom.de [mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de] Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2010 9:45 PM To: stephane.vangelder@indom.com; william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch Cc: Adrian Kinderis; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: AW: [council] Meeting Protocol for Brussels and beyond... Stéphane, I personally felt comfortable the way you were managing the weekend sessions in Nairobi which means: councillors taking seats at the table and speaking first to the various topics. Time for open discussion was still available and seemed having been taken into schedule account. I would welcome to keep it this way. Regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Stéphane Van Gelder Gesendet: Mittwoch, 2. Juni 2010 08:37 An: William Drake Cc: Adrian Kinderis; council@gnso.icann.org Council Betreff: Re: [council] Meeting Protocol for Brussels and beyond... Bill's summary is spot on as far as I can remember. In Nairobi, Adrian had pointed out the need to ensure Councillors get priority at our weekend sessions. As acting Chair at that meeting, I tried to do just that. My impression was that by allowing Councillors to speak first and then opening it to other members of the community, we were able to ensure that these sessions were productive for Councillors while still remaining open and useful for the larger community as well. Stéphane Le 2 juin 2010 à 08:20, William Drake a écrit : Hi Adrian, On Jun 2, 2010, at 2:24 AM, Adrian Kinderis wrote: I would like to suggest that there be no questions from the floor during these sessions. When we last had this conversation didn't we decide against draconian measures that would preclude community participation (and were hence poorly received by some) and for some intermediate steps like only Councilors at the table, chair gives preference to Councilor comments and right sizes the time for others, etc? If people think this has not worked sufficiently, wouldn't it be possible to simply have an offline conversation with the most relevant parties saying please respect the following ground rules, and to reiterate these at the outset of meetings? On Jun 2, 2010, at 2:51 AM, Adrian Kinderis wrote: I'll shout an extra round at the bar on Saturday night to make up for it :) Hmm...didn't I hear something like this a few meetings ago, didn't materialize... :-) BTW, on the matter of after hour amusement, perhaps I'll pass along something I pointed out to NCSG, might be of interest to some here: On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 1:33 PM, William Drake <william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch<mailto:william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch>> wrote: Hi Just an FYI for people who will be attending ICANN Brussels, as with Paris two summers ago, this meeting overlaps with the annual Fete de la Musique held across France, Belgium, Switzerland, etc. Just had a look at the program http://2010.fetedelamusique.be/recherches?tid=&tid_1=All&city=Bruxelles and inter alia Saturday night 19th Toots and the Maytals is playing in the park near the conference site. Bill
Adrian, I have intentionally been delaying commenting on this subject for at least two reasons: 1) I first wanted to make sure I could speak on behalf of the RySG membership that I represent and not just share personal thoughts, so I raised the issue on the RySG list and have been watching the discussion there; 2) I also wanted to watch the Council discussion for awhile to get a sense of what various Councilors thought about this subject before I commented in my role as Chair. There has been quite a bit of discussion on the RySG list and it has been very consistent. RySG members are opposed to closing off the meetings and not allowing observers to participate. At the same time they recognize the need for good management of open sessions and support steps in that regard such as Council seating arrangements, name tags, etc. It might be helpful to look at some history regarding open meetings. I think the new gTLD PDP serves as an important element of GNSO history in this regard. Before I was even on the Council, it was decided to use the Council as a Whole approach instead of forming a Task Force but to do that in a way that allowed broader participation than just Councilors. Bruce as Chair of the Council led the PDP effort and from beginning to end, over a span of more than 1 ½ years, participants involved Councilors and others who were willing to commit the time. We had a lot of in-person meetings including long sessions on weekends in conjunction with ICANN International meetings and, at all of those sessions, attendance and participation were open to everyone who showed up. Moreover, even though we were tackling one of the toughest tasks ever, we succeeded in producing supermajority recommendations. The results were not perfect and we are still working on their implementation today, but it really was a huge accomplishment. Bruce, and toward the end when Bruce joined the Board, Avri, are to be commended for their excellent leadership and all of the community participants, Councilors and non-Councilors, are to be complimented as well. I believe it was during the new gTLD PDP that the trend toward open WG sessions was expanded to include nearly all GNSO meetings on the weekend. And in my personal opinion as well as the view of the RySG, that has worked very well. It has not been without challenges and certainly can be improved, but it fits the bottom-up process that we are supposed to follow very well. It also meets the Board recommendation that the GNSO Council should not be a legislative body. Another point that is important is this: From the time that weekend working sessions were started until now, it was always made clear that these were not official Council meetings and that no business would be directly done. We always reserved business for the Open Council Meetings on Wednesdays or for our regular teleconference meetings. I believe that two people on the Council have supported Adrian's suggestion for making the weekend working sessions more closed: Adrian and Mike. (If others have done so, I apologise and note that it is still early for me and I have not read all my email today.) Another Board recommendation is that the GNSO Council should improve its representativeness of its stakeholders. In light of that, I would like to ask Adrian and Mike and any others who have expressed views on this issue, regardless of the views, to answer this question: Do the positions you have communicated represent the views of your Stakeholder Groups or are they primarily your personal views? Besides the representativeness concern, I ask this question because over the years I have observed excellent contributions from non-Councilors from every Stakeholder Group and Constituency including lots of contributions from members of the RrSG and CBUC. I think it would have been a loss if those had not been allowed in the process. Finally, let me suggest a word of caution. Each of us as Councilors has our own personal, business and/or professional interests with regard to GNSO work, otherwise we probably would not volunteer so much time. That is as it should be but I think we need to be careful that we are not perceived to be using our Councilor role as a platform for promoting those interests. I am not suggesting that anyone is, but I do believe that in taking a stance of making the GNSO working sessions more closed, some may perceive us that way and we may be seen as elevating ourselves above others in the community who also have their own personal, business and professional interests, just because we are Councilors. I apologise for such a long message. Speaking in my role as Chair, I recommend that we continue to not only allow open participation in our weekend working sessions but that we encourage it but that we do so in a way that is well managed and effective. And I commit myself as Chair to provide the leadership needed to make that happen with help from all of you. As first steps in that regard, I would like to ask Glen to prepare 2-sided name tags for all Councilors and participating Staff members for our meetings in Brussels and I along with help from Glen, Stéphane and Olga will do our best to make sure that there is room for all Councilors at tables where we and other participants can readily see and converse with one another and observers. Thanks to everyone for the excellent dialog on this topic. Chuck From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Kinderis Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2010 7:58 AM To: KnobenW@telekom.de; stephane.vangelder@indom.com; william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Meeting Protocol for Brussels and beyond... Wolf, That must have worked well at a conference with 20% the usual participation level and no new DAG to bang on about... I think it will be very different in Brussels. Hence my original email. I would love to hear from our Chair and Vice chair on this (not you Stephane!). Adrian Kinderis From: KnobenW@telekom.de [mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de] Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2010 9:45 PM To: stephane.vangelder@indom.com; william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch Cc: Adrian Kinderis; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: AW: [council] Meeting Protocol for Brussels and beyond... Stéphane, I personally felt comfortable the way you were managing the weekend sessions in Nairobi which means: councillors taking seats at the table and speaking first to the various topics. Time for open discussion was still available and seemed having been taken into schedule account. I would welcome to keep it this way. Regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Stéphane Van Gelder Gesendet: Mittwoch, 2. Juni 2010 08:37 An: William Drake Cc: Adrian Kinderis; council@gnso.icann.org Council Betreff: Re: [council] Meeting Protocol for Brussels and beyond... Bill's summary is spot on as far as I can remember. In Nairobi, Adrian had pointed out the need to ensure Councillors get priority at our weekend sessions. As acting Chair at that meeting, I tried to do just that. My impression was that by allowing Councillors to speak first and then opening it to other members of the community, we were able to ensure that these sessions were productive for Councillors while still remaining open and useful for the larger community as well. Stéphane Le 2 juin 2010 à 08:20, William Drake a écrit : Hi Adrian, On Jun 2, 2010, at 2:24 AM, Adrian Kinderis wrote: I would like to suggest that there be no questions from the floor during these sessions. When we last had this conversation didn't we decide against draconian measures that would preclude community participation (and were hence poorly received by some) and for some intermediate steps like only Councilors at the table, chair gives preference to Councilor comments and right sizes the time for others, etc? If people think this has not worked sufficiently, wouldn't it be possible to simply have an offline conversation with the most relevant parties saying please respect the following ground rules, and to reiterate these at the outset of meetings? On Jun 2, 2010, at 2:51 AM, Adrian Kinderis wrote: I'll shout an extra round at the bar on Saturday night to make up for it :) Hmm...didn't I hear something like this a few meetings ago, didn't materialize... :-) BTW, on the matter of after hour amusement, perhaps I'll pass along something I pointed out to NCSG, might be of interest to some here: On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 1:33 PM, William Drake <william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch> wrote: Hi Just an FYI for people who will be attending ICANN Brussels, as with Paris two summers ago, this meeting overlaps with the annual Fete de la Musique held across France, Belgium, Switzerland, etc. Just had a look at the program http://2010.fetedelamusique.be/recherches?tid=&tid_1=All&city=Bruxelles and inter alia Saturday night 19th Toots and the Maytals is playing in the park near the conference site. Bill
Thanks to Chuck, Stephane and Olga for their commitment and comments - I hope you three know that the rest of us appreciate how difficult it can be to conduct these working sessions in an efficient manner while ensuring adequate discussion time and full representative participation! Like others, I think that establishing the following baseline rules for these will be critical, not just for Brussels but as an ongoing practice: (1) seating Councillors at the table; (2) using the name cards/placards; (3) having the particular chairperson of that session announce the guidelines for discussion (as Olga mentioned) and firmly managing them (very firmly in the case of "repeat offenders"); and (4) adopting a rule that Councillors ought generally to be able to speak first. And just to add to what colleagues from NCSG, RySG and RrSG have said - there is now a difference between a Council "meeting" and a "working session" (the latter being much more open). As such, the latter sessions, in particular, necessarily mean that members of the community should not only be able to attend, but also to meaningfully participate - and here I stress the word "meaningfully". The tension I've seen is not between our views as to whether we are "representative" or more "participatory" Councillors; it is the precious little time that everyone (Council and community alike) has for - as Adrian puts it - direct access to ICANN staff. That situation is often made worse by rambling, personal, inappropriate and/or irrelevant questions/comments, or participants (including those perhaps more familiar with ICANN-land, its history, processes and long-term participants) who either dominate the discussions or exploit the advantage, during the working sessions, to speak directly to ICANN staff. To my mind, it falls (unfortunately, sorry!) to our Chair and Vice-Chairs to manage these sessions as they've committed to doing, so as to minimize disruptions and ensure that both Councillors and the community have an adequate chance to contribute to a robust discussion during these sessions. Cheers Mary Mary W S Wong Professor of Law & Chair, Graduate IP Programs Franklin Pierce Law Center Two White Street Concord, NH 03301 USA Email: mwong@piercelaw.edu Phone: 1-603-513-5143 Webpage: http://www.piercelaw.edu/marywong/index.php Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> To:"Adrian Kinderis" <adrian@ausregistry.com.au>, <KnobenW@telekom.de>, <stephane.vangelder@indom.com>, <william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch> CC:<council@gnso.icann.org> Date: 6/3/2010 11:09 AM Subject: RE: [council] Meeting Protocol for Brussels and beyond... Adrian, I have intentionally been delaying commenting on this subject for at least two reasons: 1) I first wanted to make sure I could speak on behalf of the RySG membership that I represent and not just share personal thoughts, so I raised the issue on the RySG list and have been watching the discussion there; 2) I also wanted to watch the Council discussion for awhile to get a sense of what various Councilors thought about this subject before I commented in my role as Chair. There has been quite a bit of discussion on the RySG list and it has been very consistent. RySG members are opposed to closing off the meetings and not allowing observers to participate. At the same time they recognize the need for good management of open sessions and support steps in that regard such as Council seating arrangements, name tags, etc. It might be helpful to look at some history regarding open meetings. I think the new gTLD PDP serves as an important element of GNSO history in this regard. Before I was even on the Council, it was decided to use the Council as a Whole approach instead of forming a Task Force but to do that in a way that allowed broader participation than just Councilors. Bruce as Chair of the Council led the PDP effort and from beginning to end, over a span of more than 1 ½ years, participants involved Councilors and others who were willing to commit the time. We had a lot of in-person meetings including long sessions on weekends in conjunction with ICANN International meetings and, at all of those sessions, attendance and participation were open to everyone who showed up. Moreover, even though we were tackling one of the toughest tasks ever, we succeeded in producing supermajority recommendations. The results were not perfect and we are still working on their implementation today, but it really was a huge accomplishment. Bruce, and toward the end when Bruce joined the Board, Avri, are to be commended for their excellent leadership and all of the community participants, Councilors and non-Councilors, are to be complimented as well. I believe it was during the new gTLD PDP that the trend toward open WG sessions was expanded to include nearly all GNSO meetings on the weekend. And in my personal opinion as well as the view of the RySG, that has worked very well. It has not been without challenges and certainly can be improved, but it fits the bottom-up process that we are supposed to follow very well. It also meets the Board recommendation that the GNSO Council should not be a legislative body. Another point that is important is this: From the time that weekend working sessions were started until now, it was always made clear that these were not official Council meetings and that no business would be directly done. We always reserved business for the Open Council Meetings on Wednesdays or for our regular teleconference meetings. I believe that two people on the Council have supported Adrian’s suggestion for making the weekend working sessions more closed: Adrian and Mike. (If others have done so, I apologise and note that it is still early for me and I have not read all my email today.) Another Board recommendation is that the GNSO Council should improve its representativeness of its stakeholders. In light of that, I would like to ask Adrian and Mike and any others who have expressed views on this issue, regardless of the views, to answer this question: Do the positions you have communicated represent the views of your Stakeholder Groups or are they primarily your personal views? Besides the representativeness concern, I ask this question because over the years I have observed excellent contributions from non-Councilors from every Stakeholder Group and Constituency including lots of contributions from members of the RrSG and CBUC. I think it would have been a loss if those had not been allowed in the process. Finally, let me suggest a word of caution. Each of us as Councilors has our own personal, business and/or professional interests with regard to GNSO work, otherwise we probably would not volunteer so much time. That is as it should be but I think we need to be careful that we are not perceived to be using our Councilor role as a platform for promoting those interests. I am not suggesting that anyone is, but I do believe that in taking a stance of making the GNSO working sessions more closed, some may perceive us that way and we may be seen as elevating ourselves above others in the community who also have their own personal, business and professional interests, just because we are Councilors. I apologise for such a long message. Speaking in my role as Chair, I recommend that we continue to not only allow open participation in our weekend working sessions but that we encourage it but that we do so in a way that is well managed and effective. And I commit myself as Chair to provide the leadership needed to make that happen with help from all of you. As first steps in that regard, I would like to ask Glen to prepare 2-sided name tags for all Councilors and participating Staff members for our meetings in Brussels and I along with help from Glen, Stéphane and Olga will do our best to make sure that there is room for all Councilors at tables where we and other participants can readily see and converse with one another and observers. Thanks to everyone for the excellent dialog on this topic. Chuck From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Kinderis Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2010 7:58 AM To: KnobenW@telekom.de; stephane.vangelder@indom.com; william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Meeting Protocol for Brussels and beyond... Wolf, That must have worked well at a conference with 20% the usual participation level and no new DAG to bang on about… I think it will be very different in Brussels. Hence my original email. I would love to hear from our Chair and Vice chair on this (not you Stephane!). Adrian Kinderis From: KnobenW@telekom.de [mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de] Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2010 9:45 PM To: stephane.vangelder@indom.com; william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch Cc: Adrian Kinderis; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: AW: [council] Meeting Protocol for Brussels and beyond... Stéphane, I personally felt comfortable the way you were managing the weekend sessions in Nairobi which means: councillors taking seats at the table and speaking first to the various topics. Time for open discussion was still available and seemed having been taken into schedule account. I would welcome to keep it this way. Regards Wolf-Ulrich Von: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Stéphane Van Gelder Gesendet: Mittwoch, 2. Juni 2010 08:37 An: William Drake Cc: Adrian Kinderis; council@gnso.icann.org Council Betreff: Re: [council] Meeting Protocol for Brussels and beyond... Bill's summary is spot on as far as I can remember. In Nairobi, Adrian had pointed out the need to ensure Councillors get priority at our weekend sessions. As acting Chair at that meeting, I tried to do just that. My impression was that by allowing Councillors to speak first and then opening it to other members of the community, we were able to ensure that these sessions were productive for Councillors while still remaining open and useful for the larger community as well. Stéphane Le 2 juin 2010 à 08:20, William Drake a écrit : Hi Adrian, On Jun 2, 2010, at 2:24 AM, Adrian Kinderis wrote: I would like to suggest that there be no questions from the floor during these sessions. When we last had this conversation didn't we decide against draconian measures that would preclude community participation (and were hence poorly received by some) and for some intermediate steps like only Councilors at the table, chair gives preference to Councilor comments and right sizes the time for others, etc? If people think this has not worked sufficiently, wouldn't it be possible to simply have an offline conversation with the most relevant parties saying please respect the following ground rules, and to reiterate these at the outset of meetings? On Jun 2, 2010, at 2:51 AM, Adrian Kinderis wrote: I'll shout an extra round at the bar on Saturday night to make up for it :) Hmm...didn't I hear something like this a few meetings ago, didn't materialize... :-) BTW, on the matter of after hour amusement, perhaps I'll pass along something I pointed out to NCSG, might be of interest to some here: On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 1:33 PM, William Drake <william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch> wrote: Hi Just an FYI for people who will be attending ICANN Brussels, as with Paris two summers ago, this meeting overlaps with the annual Fete de la Musique held across France, Belgium, Switzerland, etc. Just had a look at the program http://2010.fetedelamusique.be/recherches?tid=&tid_1=All&city=Bruxelles and inter alia Saturday night 19th Toots and the Maytals is playing in the park near the conference site. Bill Pierce Law | University of New Hampshire - An Innovative Paternership
Just to answer your question: there is consensus within the ISPCP constituency not to "close" the weekend council sessions as I've pointed out. Regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Gesendet: Donnerstag, 3. Juni 2010 17:03 An: Adrian Kinderis; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; stephane.vangelder@indom.com; william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Betreff: RE: [council] Meeting Protocol for Brussels and beyond... Adrian, I have intentionally been delaying commenting on this subject for at least two reasons: 1) I first wanted to make sure I could speak on behalf of the RySG membership that I represent and not just share personal thoughts, so I raised the issue on the RySG list and have been watching the discussion there; 2) I also wanted to watch the Council discussion for awhile to get a sense of what various Councilors thought about this subject before I commented in my role as Chair. There has been quite a bit of discussion on the RySG list and it has been very consistent. RySG members are opposed to closing off the meetings and not allowing observers to participate. At the same time they recognize the need for good management of open sessions and support steps in that regard such as Council seating arrangements, name tags, etc. It might be helpful to look at some history regarding open meetings. I think the new gTLD PDP serves as an important element of GNSO history in this regard. Before I was even on the Council, it was decided to use the Council as a Whole approach instead of forming a Task Force but to do that in a way that allowed broader participation than just Councilors. Bruce as Chair of the Council led the PDP effort and from beginning to end, over a span of more than 1 ½ years, participants involved Councilors and others who were willing to commit the time. We had a lot of in-person meetings including long sessions on weekends in conjunction with ICANN International meetings and, at all of those sessions, attendance and participation were open to everyone who showed up. Moreover, even though we were tackling one of the toughest tasks ever, we succeeded in producing supermajority recommendations. The results were not perfect and we are still working on their implementation today, but it really was a huge accomplishment. Bruce, and toward the end when Bruce joined the Board, Avri, are to be commended for their excellent leadership and all of the community participants, Councilors and non-Councilors, are to be complimented as well. I believe it was during the new gTLD PDP that the trend toward open WG sessions was expanded to include nearly all GNSO meetings on the weekend. And in my personal opinion as well as the view of the RySG, that has worked very well. It has not been without challenges and certainly can be improved, but it fits the bottom-up process that we are supposed to follow very well. It also meets the Board recommendation that the GNSO Council should not be a legislative body. Another point that is important is this: From the time that weekend working sessions were started until now, it was always made clear that these were not official Council meetings and that no business would be directly done. We always reserved business for the Open Council Meetings on Wednesdays or for our regular teleconference meetings. I believe that two people on the Council have supported Adrian's suggestion for making the weekend working sessions more closed: Adrian and Mike. (If others have done so, I apologise and note that it is still early for me and I have not read all my email today.) Another Board recommendation is that the GNSO Council should improve its representativeness of its stakeholders. In light of that, I would like to ask Adrian and Mike and any others who have expressed views on this issue, regardless of the views, to answer this question: Do the positions you have communicated represent the views of your Stakeholder Groups or are they primarily your personal views? Besides the representativeness concern, I ask this question because over the years I have observed excellent contributions from non-Councilors from every Stakeholder Group and Constituency including lots of contributions from members of the RrSG and CBUC. I think it would have been a loss if those had not been allowed in the process. Finally, let me suggest a word of caution. Each of us as Councilors has our own personal, business and/or professional interests with regard to GNSO work, otherwise we probably would not volunteer so much time. That is as it should be but I think we need to be careful that we are not perceived to be using our Councilor role as a platform for promoting those interests. I am not suggesting that anyone is, but I do believe that in taking a stance of making the GNSO working sessions more closed, some may perceive us that way and we may be seen as elevating ourselves above others in the community who also have their own personal, business and professional interests, just because we are Councilors. I apologise for such a long message. Speaking in my role as Chair, I recommend that we continue to not only allow open participation in our weekend working sessions but that we encourage it but that we do so in a way that is well managed and effective. And I commit myself as Chair to provide the leadership needed to make that happen with help from all of you. As first steps in that regard, I would like to ask Glen to prepare 2-sided name tags for all Councilors and participating Staff members for our meetings in Brussels and I along with help from Glen, Stéphane and Olga will do our best to make sure that there is room for all Councilors at tables where we and other participants can readily see and converse with one another and observers. Thanks to everyone for the excellent dialog on this topic. Chuck From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Kinderis Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2010 7:58 AM To: KnobenW@telekom.de; stephane.vangelder@indom.com; william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Meeting Protocol for Brussels and beyond... Wolf, That must have worked well at a conference with 20% the usual participation level and no new DAG to bang on about... I think it will be very different in Brussels. Hence my original email. I would love to hear from our Chair and Vice chair on this (not you Stephane!). Adrian Kinderis From: KnobenW@telekom.de [mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de] Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2010 9:45 PM To: stephane.vangelder@indom.com; william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch Cc: Adrian Kinderis; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: AW: [council] Meeting Protocol for Brussels and beyond... Stéphane, I personally felt comfortable the way you were managing the weekend sessions in Nairobi which means: councillors taking seats at the table and speaking first to the various topics. Time for open discussion was still available and seemed having been taken into schedule account. I would welcome to keep it this way. Regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Stéphane Van Gelder Gesendet: Mittwoch, 2. Juni 2010 08:37 An: William Drake Cc: Adrian Kinderis; council@gnso.icann.org Council Betreff: Re: [council] Meeting Protocol for Brussels and beyond... Bill's summary is spot on as far as I can remember. In Nairobi, Adrian had pointed out the need to ensure Councillors get priority at our weekend sessions. As acting Chair at that meeting, I tried to do just that. My impression was that by allowing Councillors to speak first and then opening it to other members of the community, we were able to ensure that these sessions were productive for Councillors while still remaining open and useful for the larger community as well. Stéphane Le 2 juin 2010 à 08:20, William Drake a écrit : Hi Adrian, On Jun 2, 2010, at 2:24 AM, Adrian Kinderis wrote: I would like to suggest that there be no questions from the floor during these sessions. When we last had this conversation didn't we decide against draconian measures that would preclude community participation (and were hence poorly received by some) and for some intermediate steps like only Councilors at the table, chair gives preference to Councilor comments and right sizes the time for others, etc? If people think this has not worked sufficiently, wouldn't it be possible to simply have an offline conversation with the most relevant parties saying please respect the following ground rules, and to reiterate these at the outset of meetings? On Jun 2, 2010, at 2:51 AM, Adrian Kinderis wrote: I'll shout an extra round at the bar on Saturday night to make up for it :) Hmm...didn't I hear something like this a few meetings ago, didn't materialize... :-) BTW, on the matter of after hour amusement, perhaps I'll pass along something I pointed out to NCSG, might be of interest to some here: On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 1:33 PM, William Drake <william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch> wrote: Hi Just an FYI for people who will be attending ICANN Brussels, as with Paris two summers ago, this meeting overlaps with the annual Fete de la Musique held across France, Belgium, Switzerland, etc. Just had a look at the program http://2010.fetedelamusique.be/recherches?tid=&tid_1=All&city=Bruxelles and inter alia Saturday night 19th Toots and the Maytals is playing in the park near the conference site. Bill
Chuck et al, Firstly I appreciate you taking the time to put together such well thought out responses. I should say that the opinions expressed in my emails were my own - however, they were anecdotally on behalf of frustrated colleagues that I have either spoken to in the audience or indeed Councilors at the end of our sessions. That said, I believe I have been swayed. Direct audience participation can work, so long as we have the benefit of a strong Chair and support from vice-Chairs and a protocol for answering questions. Please note I was never suggesting to limit their voice, only to have it guided through a Councilor as a means for efficiency and structure. I understand the importance of community input. I understand the value of varied opinions and perspectives. This must be supported. I have also come to realize the Council is more than just representative Councilors, it is members of Working Groups and Committees also. Limiting their ability to directly contribute would be detrimental. We, as Councilors, need access to staff. We need to understand what they are thinking and also to support and assist them. They need access to us to support the policy development and review process that is a function of the Council. So long as we have this in a manner that allows us to be productive, I will be satisfied. Thanks again for the well structured and thought out perspectives. I am glad the discussion was had. I am better for it. I trust our workshops will be too. Adrian Kinderis From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Sent: Friday, June 04, 2010 1:03 AM To: Adrian Kinderis; KnobenW@telekom.de; stephane.vangelder@indom.com; william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Meeting Protocol for Brussels and beyond... Adrian, I have intentionally been delaying commenting on this subject for at least two reasons: 1) I first wanted to make sure I could speak on behalf of the RySG membership that I represent and not just share personal thoughts, so I raised the issue on the RySG list and have been watching the discussion there; 2) I also wanted to watch the Council discussion for awhile to get a sense of what various Councilors thought about this subject before I commented in my role as Chair. There has been quite a bit of discussion on the RySG list and it has been very consistent. RySG members are opposed to closing off the meetings and not allowing observers to participate. At the same time they recognize the need for good management of open sessions and support steps in that regard such as Council seating arrangements, name tags, etc. It might be helpful to look at some history regarding open meetings. I think the new gTLD PDP serves as an important element of GNSO history in this regard. Before I was even on the Council, it was decided to use the Council as a Whole approach instead of forming a Task Force but to do that in a way that allowed broader participation than just Councilors. Bruce as Chair of the Council led the PDP effort and from beginning to end, over a span of more than 1 ½ years, participants involved Councilors and others who were willing to commit the time. We had a lot of in-person meetings including long sessions on weekends in conjunction with ICANN International meetings and, at all of those sessions, attendance and participation were open to everyone who showed up. Moreover, even though we were tackling one of the toughest tasks ever, we succeeded in producing supermajority recommendations. The results were not perfect and we are still working on their implementation today, but it really was a huge accomplishment. Bruce, and toward the end when Bruce joined the Board, Avri, are to be commended for their excellent leadership and all of the community participants, Councilors and non-Councilors, are to be complimented as well. I believe it was during the new gTLD PDP that the trend toward open WG sessions was expanded to include nearly all GNSO meetings on the weekend. And in my personal opinion as well as the view of the RySG, that has worked very well. It has not been without challenges and certainly can be improved, but it fits the bottom-up process that we are supposed to follow very well. It also meets the Board recommendation that the GNSO Council should not be a legislative body. Another point that is important is this: From the time that weekend working sessions were started until now, it was always made clear that these were not official Council meetings and that no business would be directly done. We always reserved business for the Open Council Meetings on Wednesdays or for our regular teleconference meetings. I believe that two people on the Council have supported Adrian's suggestion for making the weekend working sessions more closed: Adrian and Mike. (If others have done so, I apologise and note that it is still early for me and I have not read all my email today.) Another Board recommendation is that the GNSO Council should improve its representativeness of its stakeholders. In light of that, I would like to ask Adrian and Mike and any others who have expressed views on this issue, regardless of the views, to answer this question: Do the positions you have communicated represent the views of your Stakeholder Groups or are they primarily your personal views? Besides the representativeness concern, I ask this question because over the years I have observed excellent contributions from non-Councilors from every Stakeholder Group and Constituency including lots of contributions from members of the RrSG and CBUC. I think it would have been a loss if those had not been allowed in the process. Finally, let me suggest a word of caution. Each of us as Councilors has our own personal, business and/or professional interests with regard to GNSO work, otherwise we probably would not volunteer so much time. That is as it should be but I think we need to be careful that we are not perceived to be using our Councilor role as a platform for promoting those interests. I am not suggesting that anyone is, but I do believe that in taking a stance of making the GNSO working sessions more closed, some may perceive us that way and we may be seen as elevating ourselves above others in the community who also have their own personal, business and professional interests, just because we are Councilors. I apologise for such a long message. Speaking in my role as Chair, I recommend that we continue to not only allow open participation in our weekend working sessions but that we encourage it but that we do so in a way that is well managed and effective. And I commit myself as Chair to provide the leadership needed to make that happen with help from all of you. As first steps in that regard, I would like to ask Glen to prepare 2-sided name tags for all Councilors and participating Staff members for our meetings in Brussels and I along with help from Glen, Stéphane and Olga will do our best to make sure that there is room for all Councilors at tables where we and other participants can readily see and converse with one another and observers. Thanks to everyone for the excellent dialog on this topic. Chuck From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Kinderis Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2010 7:58 AM To: KnobenW@telekom.de; stephane.vangelder@indom.com; william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Meeting Protocol for Brussels and beyond... Wolf, That must have worked well at a conference with 20% the usual participation level and no new DAG to bang on about... I think it will be very different in Brussels. Hence my original email. I would love to hear from our Chair and Vice chair on this (not you Stephane!). Adrian Kinderis From: KnobenW@telekom.de [mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de] Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2010 9:45 PM To: stephane.vangelder@indom.com; william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch Cc: Adrian Kinderis; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: AW: [council] Meeting Protocol for Brussels and beyond... Stéphane, I personally felt comfortable the way you were managing the weekend sessions in Nairobi which means: councillors taking seats at the table and speaking first to the various topics. Time for open discussion was still available and seemed having been taken into schedule account. I would welcome to keep it this way. Regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Stéphane Van Gelder Gesendet: Mittwoch, 2. Juni 2010 08:37 An: William Drake Cc: Adrian Kinderis; council@gnso.icann.org Council Betreff: Re: [council] Meeting Protocol for Brussels and beyond... Bill's summary is spot on as far as I can remember. In Nairobi, Adrian had pointed out the need to ensure Councillors get priority at our weekend sessions. As acting Chair at that meeting, I tried to do just that. My impression was that by allowing Councillors to speak first and then opening it to other members of the community, we were able to ensure that these sessions were productive for Councillors while still remaining open and useful for the larger community as well. Stéphane Le 2 juin 2010 à 08:20, William Drake a écrit : Hi Adrian, On Jun 2, 2010, at 2:24 AM, Adrian Kinderis wrote: I would like to suggest that there be no questions from the floor during these sessions. When we last had this conversation didn't we decide against draconian measures that would preclude community participation (and were hence poorly received by some) and for some intermediate steps like only Councilors at the table, chair gives preference to Councilor comments and right sizes the time for others, etc? If people think this has not worked sufficiently, wouldn't it be possible to simply have an offline conversation with the most relevant parties saying please respect the following ground rules, and to reiterate these at the outset of meetings? On Jun 2, 2010, at 2:51 AM, Adrian Kinderis wrote: I'll shout an extra round at the bar on Saturday night to make up for it :) Hmm...didn't I hear something like this a few meetings ago, didn't materialize... :-) BTW, on the matter of after hour amusement, perhaps I'll pass along something I pointed out to NCSG, might be of interest to some here: On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 1:33 PM, William Drake <william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch<mailto:william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch>> wrote: Hi Just an FYI for people who will be attending ICANN Brussels, as with Paris two summers ago, this meeting overlaps with the annual Fete de la Musique held across France, Belgium, Switzerland, etc. Just had a look at the program http://2010.fetedelamusique.be/recherches?tid=&tid_1=All&city=Bruxelles and inter alia Saturday night 19th Toots and the Maytals is playing in the park near the conference site. Bill
Thanks for your response Adrian. I also benefited from the discussion and appreciate the fact that you initiated it. I expect all of you to keep me on target in Brussels. Chuck From: Adrian Kinderis [mailto:adrian@ausregistry.com.au] Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2010 6:15 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; KnobenW@telekom.de; stephane.vangelder@indom.com; william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Meeting Protocol for Brussels and beyond... Chuck et al, Firstly I appreciate you taking the time to put together such well thought out responses. I should say that the opinions expressed in my emails were my own - however, they were anecdotally on behalf of frustrated colleagues that I have either spoken to in the audience or indeed Councilors at the end of our sessions. That said, I believe I have been swayed. Direct audience participation can work, so long as we have the benefit of a strong Chair and support from vice-Chairs and a protocol for answering questions. Please note I was never suggesting to limit their voice, only to have it guided through a Councilor as a means for efficiency and structure. I understand the importance of community input. I understand the value of varied opinions and perspectives. This must be supported. I have also come to realize the Council is more than just representative Councilors, it is members of Working Groups and Committees also. Limiting their ability to directly contribute would be detrimental. We, as Councilors, need access to staff. We need to understand what they are thinking and also to support and assist them. They need access to us to support the policy development and review process that is a function of the Council. So long as we have this in a manner that allows us to be productive, I will be satisfied. Thanks again for the well structured and thought out perspectives. I am glad the discussion was had. I am better for it. I trust our workshops will be too. Adrian Kinderis From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Sent: Friday, June 04, 2010 1:03 AM To: Adrian Kinderis; KnobenW@telekom.de; stephane.vangelder@indom.com; william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Meeting Protocol for Brussels and beyond... Adrian, I have intentionally been delaying commenting on this subject for at least two reasons: 1) I first wanted to make sure I could speak on behalf of the RySG membership that I represent and not just share personal thoughts, so I raised the issue on the RySG list and have been watching the discussion there; 2) I also wanted to watch the Council discussion for awhile to get a sense of what various Councilors thought about this subject before I commented in my role as Chair. There has been quite a bit of discussion on the RySG list and it has been very consistent. RySG members are opposed to closing off the meetings and not allowing observers to participate. At the same time they recognize the need for good management of open sessions and support steps in that regard such as Council seating arrangements, name tags, etc. It might be helpful to look at some history regarding open meetings. I think the new gTLD PDP serves as an important element of GNSO history in this regard. Before I was even on the Council, it was decided to use the Council as a Whole approach instead of forming a Task Force but to do that in a way that allowed broader participation than just Councilors. Bruce as Chair of the Council led the PDP effort and from beginning to end, over a span of more than 1 ½ years, participants involved Councilors and others who were willing to commit the time. We had a lot of in-person meetings including long sessions on weekends in conjunction with ICANN International meetings and, at all of those sessions, attendance and participation were open to everyone who showed up. Moreover, even though we were tackling one of the toughest tasks ever, we succeeded in producing supermajority recommendations. The results were not perfect and we are still working on their implementation today, but it really was a huge accomplishment. Bruce, and toward the end when Bruce joined the Board, Avri, are to be commended for their excellent leadership and all of the community participants, Councilors and non-Councilors, are to be complimented as well. I believe it was during the new gTLD PDP that the trend toward open WG sessions was expanded to include nearly all GNSO meetings on the weekend. And in my personal opinion as well as the view of the RySG, that has worked very well. It has not been without challenges and certainly can be improved, but it fits the bottom-up process that we are supposed to follow very well. It also meets the Board recommendation that the GNSO Council should not be a legislative body. Another point that is important is this: From the time that weekend working sessions were started until now, it was always made clear that these were not official Council meetings and that no business would be directly done. We always reserved business for the Open Council Meetings on Wednesdays or for our regular teleconference meetings. I believe that two people on the Council have supported Adrian's suggestion for making the weekend working sessions more closed: Adrian and Mike. (If others have done so, I apologise and note that it is still early for me and I have not read all my email today.) Another Board recommendation is that the GNSO Council should improve its representativeness of its stakeholders. In light of that, I would like to ask Adrian and Mike and any others who have expressed views on this issue, regardless of the views, to answer this question: Do the positions you have communicated represent the views of your Stakeholder Groups or are they primarily your personal views? Besides the representativeness concern, I ask this question because over the years I have observed excellent contributions from non-Councilors from every Stakeholder Group and Constituency including lots of contributions from members of the RrSG and CBUC. I think it would have been a loss if those had not been allowed in the process. Finally, let me suggest a word of caution. Each of us as Councilors has our own personal, business and/or professional interests with regard to GNSO work, otherwise we probably would not volunteer so much time. That is as it should be but I think we need to be careful that we are not perceived to be using our Councilor role as a platform for promoting those interests. I am not suggesting that anyone is, but I do believe that in taking a stance of making the GNSO working sessions more closed, some may perceive us that way and we may be seen as elevating ourselves above others in the community who also have their own personal, business and professional interests, just because we are Councilors. I apologise for such a long message. Speaking in my role as Chair, I recommend that we continue to not only allow open participation in our weekend working sessions but that we encourage it but that we do so in a way that is well managed and effective. And I commit myself as Chair to provide the leadership needed to make that happen with help from all of you. As first steps in that regard, I would like to ask Glen to prepare 2-sided name tags for all Councilors and participating Staff members for our meetings in Brussels and I along with help from Glen, Stéphane and Olga will do our best to make sure that there is room for all Councilors at tables where we and other participants can readily see and converse with one another and observers. Thanks to everyone for the excellent dialog on this topic. Chuck From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Kinderis Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2010 7:58 AM To: KnobenW@telekom.de; stephane.vangelder@indom.com; william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Meeting Protocol for Brussels and beyond... Wolf, That must have worked well at a conference with 20% the usual participation level and no new DAG to bang on about... I think it will be very different in Brussels. Hence my original email. I would love to hear from our Chair and Vice chair on this (not you Stephane!). Adrian Kinderis From: KnobenW@telekom.de [mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de] Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2010 9:45 PM To: stephane.vangelder@indom.com; william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch Cc: Adrian Kinderis; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: AW: [council] Meeting Protocol for Brussels and beyond... Stéphane, I personally felt comfortable the way you were managing the weekend sessions in Nairobi which means: councillors taking seats at the table and speaking first to the various topics. Time for open discussion was still available and seemed having been taken into schedule account. I would welcome to keep it this way. Regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Stéphane Van Gelder Gesendet: Mittwoch, 2. Juni 2010 08:37 An: William Drake Cc: Adrian Kinderis; council@gnso.icann.org Council Betreff: Re: [council] Meeting Protocol for Brussels and beyond... Bill's summary is spot on as far as I can remember. In Nairobi, Adrian had pointed out the need to ensure Councillors get priority at our weekend sessions. As acting Chair at that meeting, I tried to do just that. My impression was that by allowing Councillors to speak first and then opening it to other members of the community, we were able to ensure that these sessions were productive for Councillors while still remaining open and useful for the larger community as well. Stéphane Le 2 juin 2010 à 08:20, William Drake a écrit : Hi Adrian, On Jun 2, 2010, at 2:24 AM, Adrian Kinderis wrote: I would like to suggest that there be no questions from the floor during these sessions. When we last had this conversation didn't we decide against draconian measures that would preclude community participation (and were hence poorly received by some) and for some intermediate steps like only Councilors at the table, chair gives preference to Councilor comments and right sizes the time for others, etc? If people think this has not worked sufficiently, wouldn't it be possible to simply have an offline conversation with the most relevant parties saying please respect the following ground rules, and to reiterate these at the outset of meetings? On Jun 2, 2010, at 2:51 AM, Adrian Kinderis wrote: I'll shout an extra round at the bar on Saturday night to make up for it :) Hmm...didn't I hear something like this a few meetings ago, didn't materialize... :-) BTW, on the matter of after hour amusement, perhaps I'll pass along something I pointed out to NCSG, might be of interest to some here: On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 1:33 PM, William Drake <william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch> wrote: Hi Just an FYI for people who will be attending ICANN Brussels, as with Paris two summers ago, this meeting overlaps with the annual Fete de la Musique held across France, Belgium, Switzerland, etc. Just had a look at the program http://2010.fetedelamusique.be/recherches?tid=&tid_1=All&city=Bruxelles and inter alia Saturday night 19th Toots and the Maytals is playing in the park near the conference site. Bill
Hi Adrian, thanks for asking my opinion. I will make some comments on this regard from a personal perspective as a Noncom Appointee to the GNSO, and based on my experience in ICANN meetings and in other international and regional fora. - I am in favor of open meetings, I think there is great value in multiparticipation and I support that. I also think that time and space should be well managed to allow GNSO council members to use efficiently the time of the meeting as well. - About seats: I would find useful having name tags, and also for avoiding confusion main seats should be for GNSO Council Members. - About questions and open mic, I suggest that the chair mention some time and order management rules at the beginning of the meeting. For example questions from other participants who are not GNSO council members could be done after the councillors have already spoken. Also it could be useful to say how much time each speaker has as a maximum, diversity in who speaks on the open mic also should be encouraged. If someone has already spoken then the floor should be given to some one else in the queue. - About LANGUAGE: some of us and many of the general public participants have English as a second language. We all know that it is the working language of the GNSO and we accept this. But sometimes native speakers using colloquial or local expressions, or speaking very quicly, makes it difficult or even impossible for us to understand what is being said. So I would suggest that our chair could also mention this and ask for those who will speak to do it in a clear an neutral language, if possible. Thanks and regards Olga 2010/6/3 Adrian Kinderis <adrian@ausregistry.com.au>
Wolf,
That must have worked well at a conference with 20% the usual participation level and no new DAG to bang on about…
I think it will be very different in Brussels. Hence my original email.
I would love to hear from our Chair and Vice chair on this (not you Stephane!).
*Adrian Kinderis*
*From:* KnobenW@telekom.de [mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de] *Sent:* Thursday, June 03, 2010 9:45 PM *To:* stephane.vangelder@indom.com; william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch
*Cc:* Adrian Kinderis; council@gnso.icann.org *Subject:* AW: [council] Meeting Protocol for Brussels and beyond...
Stéphane,
I personally felt comfortable the way you were managing the weekend sessions in Nairobi which means: councillors taking seats at the table and speaking first to the various topics. Time for open discussion was still available and seemed having been taken into schedule account. I would welcome to keep it this way.
Regards Wolf-Ulrich
------------------------------
*Von:* owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] *Im Auftrag von *Stéphane Van Gelder *Gesendet:* Mittwoch, 2. Juni 2010 08:37 *An:* William Drake *Cc:* Adrian Kinderis; council@gnso.icann.org Council *Betreff:* Re: [council] Meeting Protocol for Brussels and beyond...
Bill's summary is spot on as far as I can remember. In Nairobi, Adrian had pointed out the need to ensure Councillors get priority at our weekend sessions. As acting Chair at that meeting, I tried to do just that. My impression was that by allowing Councillors to speak first and then opening it to other members of the community, we were able to ensure that these sessions were productive for Councillors while still remaining open and useful for the larger community as well.
Stéphane
Le 2 juin 2010 à 08:20, William Drake a écrit :
Hi Adrian,
On Jun 2, 2010, at 2:24 AM, Adrian Kinderis wrote:
I would like to suggest that there be no questions from the floor during these sessions.
When we last had this conversation didn't we decide against draconian
measures that would preclude community participation (and were hence poorly
received by some) and for some intermediate steps like only Councilors at
the table, chair gives preference to Councilor comments and right sizes the
time for others, etc? If people think this has not worked sufficiently,
wouldn't it be possible to simply have an offline conversation with the most
relevant parties saying please respect the following ground rules, and to
reiterate these at the outset of meetings?
On Jun 2, 2010, at 2:51 AM, Adrian Kinderis wrote:
I'll shout an extra round at the bar on Saturday night to make up for it :)
Hmm...didn't I hear something like this a few meetings ago, didn't materialize... :-)
BTW, on the matter of after hour amusement, perhaps I'll pass along something I pointed out to NCSG, might be of interest to some here:
On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 1:33 PM, William Drake <william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch> wrote:
Hi
Just an FYI for people who will be attending ICANN Brussels, as with Paris two summers ago, this meeting overlaps with the annual Fete de la Musique held across France, Belgium, Switzerland, etc. Just had a look at the program http://2010.fetedelamusique.be/recherches?tid=&tid_1=All&city=Bruxelles and inter alia Saturday night 19th Toots and the Maytals is playing in the park near the conference site.
Bill
Olga Well stated. On the open mic, we will need then to assure that our Council questions are not allowed to consume the full time. I suspect that the Chair will have to limit our discussion times some to insure that public questions are allowed time. In other public forums I have worked (i.e. Land Use Commission and several others) we provided a table with a signup list for the public to speak and a timer to insure that they did not go on too long. (We were trying avoid the 7PM to 3AM meetings and eventually we just had to close the meetings at 11:30PM anyway so we could get some sleep on Commission nights.) And as to English as a 2nd language, Im from the southern part of the US originally where we tend to speak more softly and slowly and with different accents. I was in my mid-20s on my first trip abroad for AID to the middle east. I thought I spoke English but I never understood a single word the Heathrow customs officer said to me; the woman behind me very patiently repeated everything he said to me so I could understand what he was asking me. So I understand at least somewhat that issue. Take care Terry From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Olga Cavalli Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2010 8:33 AM To: Adrian Kinderis Cc: KnobenW@telekom.de; stephane.vangelder@indom.com; william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Meeting Protocol for Brussels and beyond... Hi Adrian, thanks for asking my opinion. I will make some comments on this regard from a personal perspective as a Noncom Appointee to the GNSO, and based on my experience in ICANN meetings and in other international and regional fora. - I am in favor of open meetings, I think there is great value in multiparticipation and I support that. I also think that time and space should be well managed to allow GNSO council members to use efficiently the time of the meeting as well. - About seats: I would find useful having name tags, and also for avoiding confusion main seats should be for GNSO Council Members. - About questions and open mic, I suggest that the chair mention some time and order management rules at the beginning of the meeting. For example questions from other participants who are not GNSO council members could be done after the councillors have already spoken. Also it could be useful to say how much time each speaker has as a maximum, diversity in who speaks on the open mic also should be encouraged. If someone has already spoken then the floor should be given to some one else in the queue. - About LANGUAGE: some of us and many of the general public participants have English as a second language. We all know that it is the working language of the GNSO and we accept this. But sometimes native speakers using colloquial or local expressions, or speaking very quicly, makes it difficult or even impossible for us to understand what is being said. So I would suggest that our chair could also mention this and ask for those who will speak to do it in a clear an neutral language, if possible. Thanks and regards Olga 2010/6/3 Adrian Kinderis <adrian@ausregistry.com.au> Wolf, That must have worked well at a conference with 20% the usual participation level and no new DAG to bang on about I think it will be very different in Brussels. Hence my original email. I would love to hear from our Chair and Vice chair on this (not you Stephane!). Adrian Kinderis From: KnobenW@telekom.de [mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de] Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2010 9:45 PM To: stephane.vangelder@indom.com; william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch Cc: Adrian Kinderis; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: AW: [council] Meeting Protocol for Brussels and beyond... Stéphane, I personally felt comfortable the way you were managing the weekend sessions in Nairobi which means: councillors taking seats at the table and speaking first to the various topics. Time for open discussion was still available and seemed having been taken into schedule account. I would welcome to keep it this way. Regards Wolf-Ulrich _____ Von: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Stéphane Van Gelder Gesendet: Mittwoch, 2. Juni 2010 08:37 An: William Drake Cc: Adrian Kinderis; council@gnso.icann.org Council Betreff: Re: [council] Meeting Protocol for Brussels and beyond... Bill's summary is spot on as far as I can remember. In Nairobi, Adrian had pointed out the need to ensure Councillors get priority at our weekend sessions. As acting Chair at that meeting, I tried to do just that. My impression was that by allowing Councillors to speak first and then opening it to other members of the community, we were able to ensure that these sessions were productive for Councillors while still remaining open and useful for the larger community as well. Stéphane Le 2 juin 2010 à 08:20, William Drake a écrit : Hi Adrian, On Jun 2, 2010, at 2:24 AM, Adrian Kinderis wrote: I would like to suggest that there be no questions from the floor during these sessions. When we last had this conversation didn't we decide against draconian measures that would preclude community participation (and were hence poorly received by some) and for some intermediate steps like only Councilors at the table, chair gives preference to Councilor comments and right sizes the time for others, etc? If people think this has not worked sufficiently, wouldn't it be possible to simply have an offline conversation with the most relevant parties saying please respect the following ground rules, and to reiterate these at the outset of meetings? On Jun 2, 2010, at 2:51 AM, Adrian Kinderis wrote: I'll shout an extra round at the bar on Saturday night to make up for it :) Hmm...didn't I hear something like this a few meetings ago, didn't materialize... :-) BTW, on the matter of after hour amusement, perhaps I'll pass along something I pointed out to NCSG, might be of interest to some here: On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 1:33 PM, William Drake <william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch> wrote: Hi Just an FYI for people who will be attending ICANN Brussels, as with Paris two summers ago, this meeting overlaps with the annual Fete de la Musique held across France, Belgium, Switzerland, etc. Just had a look at the program http://2010.fetedelamusique.be/recherches?tid= <http://2010.fetedelamusique.be/recherches?tid=&tid_1=All&city=Bruxelles> &tid_1=All&city=Bruxelles and inter alia Saturday night 19th Toots and the Maytals is playing in the park near the conference site. Bill
Terry, acknowledged! The major problems to understand "English" during my almost 30 years international career came up when UK originees took the floor. I'm still thinking about the reason :-) Regards Wolf-Ulrich _____ Von: Terry L Davis, P.E. [mailto:tdavis2@speakeasy.net] Gesendet: Freitag, 4. Juni 2010 07:44 An: 'Olga Cavalli'; 'Adrian Kinderis' Cc: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; stephane.vangelder@indom.com; william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch; council@gnso.icann.org Betreff: RE: [council] Meeting Protocol for Brussels and beyond... Olga Well stated. On the "open mic", we will need then to assure that our Council questions are not allowed to consume the full time. I suspect that the Chair will have to limit our discussion times some to insure that public questions are allowed time. In other public forums I have worked (i.e. Land Use Commission and several others) we provided a table with a signup list for the public to speak and a timer to insure that they did not go on too long. (We were trying avoid the 7PM to 3AM meetings and eventually we just had to close the meetings at 11:30PM anyway so we could get some sleep on Commission nights.) And as to English as a 2nd language, I'm from the southern part of the US originally where we tend to speak more softly and slowly and with different accents. I was in my mid-20's on my first trip abroad for AID to the middle east. I thought I spoke "English" but I never understood a single word the Heathrow customs officer said to me; the woman behind me very patiently repeated everything he said to me so I could understand what he was asking me. So I understand at least somewhat that issue. Take care Terry From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Olga Cavalli Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2010 8:33 AM To: Adrian Kinderis Cc: KnobenW@telekom.de; stephane.vangelder@indom.com; william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Meeting Protocol for Brussels and beyond... Hi Adrian, thanks for asking my opinion. I will make some comments on this regard from a personal perspective as a Noncom Appointee to the GNSO, and based on my experience in ICANN meetings and in other international and regional fora. - I am in favor of open meetings, I think there is great value in multiparticipation and I support that. I also think that time and space should be well managed to allow GNSO council members to use efficiently the time of the meeting as well. - About seats: I would find useful having name tags, and also for avoiding confusion main seats should be for GNSO Council Members. - About questions and open mic, I suggest that the chair mention some time and order management rules at the beginning of the meeting. For example questions from other participants who are not GNSO council members could be done after the councillors have already spoken. Also it could be useful to say how much time each speaker has as a maximum, diversity in who speaks on the open mic also should be encouraged. If someone has already spoken then the floor should be given to some one else in the queue. - About LANGUAGE: some of us and many of the general public participants have English as a second language. We all know that it is the working language of the GNSO and we accept this. But sometimes native speakers using colloquial or local expressions, or speaking very quicly, makes it difficult or even impossible for us to understand what is being said. So I would suggest that our chair could also mention this and ask for those who will speak to do it in a clear an neutral language, if possible. Thanks and regards Olga 2010/6/3 Adrian Kinderis <adrian@ausregistry.com.au> Wolf, That must have worked well at a conference with 20% the usual participation level and no new DAG to bang on about... I think it will be very different in Brussels. Hence my original email. I would love to hear from our Chair and Vice chair on this (not you Stephane!). Adrian Kinderis From: KnobenW@telekom.de [mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de] Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2010 9:45 PM To: stephane.vangelder@indom.com; william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch Cc: Adrian Kinderis; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: AW: [council] Meeting Protocol for Brussels and beyond... Stéphane, I personally felt comfortable the way you were managing the weekend sessions in Nairobi which means: councillors taking seats at the table and speaking first to the various topics. Time for open discussion was still available and seemed having been taken into schedule account. I would welcome to keep it this way. Regards Wolf-Ulrich _____ Von: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Stéphane Van Gelder Gesendet: Mittwoch, 2. Juni 2010 08:37 An: William Drake Cc: Adrian Kinderis; council@gnso.icann.org Council Betreff: Re: [council] Meeting Protocol for Brussels and beyond... Bill's summary is spot on as far as I can remember. In Nairobi, Adrian had pointed out the need to ensure Councillors get priority at our weekend sessions. As acting Chair at that meeting, I tried to do just that. My impression was that by allowing Councillors to speak first and then opening it to other members of the community, we were able to ensure that these sessions were productive for Councillors while still remaining open and useful for the larger community as well. Stéphane Le 2 juin 2010 à 08:20, William Drake a écrit : Hi Adrian, On Jun 2, 2010, at 2:24 AM, Adrian Kinderis wrote: I would like to suggest that there be no questions from the floor during these sessions. When we last had this conversation didn't we decide against draconian measures that would preclude community participation (and were hence poorly received by some) and for some intermediate steps like only Councilors at the table, chair gives preference to Councilor comments and right sizes the time for others, etc? If people think this has not worked sufficiently, wouldn't it be possible to simply have an offline conversation with the most relevant parties saying please respect the following ground rules, and to reiterate these at the outset of meetings? On Jun 2, 2010, at 2:51 AM, Adrian Kinderis wrote: I'll shout an extra round at the bar on Saturday night to make up for it :) Hmm...didn't I hear something like this a few meetings ago, didn't materialize... :-) BTW, on the matter of after hour amusement, perhaps I'll pass along something I pointed out to NCSG, might be of interest to some here: On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 1:33 PM, William Drake <william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch> wrote: Hi Just an FYI for people who will be attending ICANN Brussels, as with Paris two summers ago, this meeting overlaps with the annual Fete de la Musique held across France, Belgium, Switzerland, etc. Just had a look at the program http://2010.fetedelamusique.be/recherches?tid= <http://2010.fetedelamusique.be/recherches?tid=&tid_1=All&city=Bruxelles> &tid_1=All&city=Bruxelles and inter alia Saturday night 19th Toots and the Maytals is playing in the park near the conference site. Bill
IMO, it's very important we take the English language barrier problem brought up by Olga very seriously. It is a clear hindrance to people who are not as comfortable as native English speakers. This has to be taken into account by meeting leaders so that these people are allowed more time to express themselves. It all goes back to having the leaders manage the queue effectively, a point on which I think we are all agreed now. Stéphane Le 4 juin 2010 à 08:27, <KnobenW@telekom.de> a écrit :
Terry, acknowledged! The major problems to understand "English" during my almost 30 years international career came up when UK originees took the floor. I'm still thinking about the reason :-)
Regards Wolf-Ulrich
Von: Terry L Davis, P.E. [mailto:tdavis2@speakeasy.net] Gesendet: Freitag, 4. Juni 2010 07:44 An: 'Olga Cavalli'; 'Adrian Kinderis' Cc: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; stephane.vangelder@indom.com; william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch; council@gnso.icann.org Betreff: RE: [council] Meeting Protocol for Brussels and beyond...
Olga
Well stated.
On the “open mic”, we will need then to assure that our Council questions are not allowed to consume the full time. I suspect that the Chair will have to limit our discussion times some to insure that public questions are allowed time. In other public forums I have worked (i.e. Land Use Commission and several others) we provided a table with a signup list for the public to speak and a timer to insure that they did not go on too long. (We were trying avoid the 7PM to 3AM meetings and eventually we just had to close the meetings at 11:30PM anyway so we could get some sleep on Commission nights.)
And as to English as a 2nd language, I’m from the southern part of the US originally where we tend to speak more softly and slowly and with different accents. I was in my mid-20’s on my first trip abroad for AID to the middle east. I thought I spoke “English” but I never understood a single word the Heathrow customs officer said to me; the woman behind me very patiently repeated everything he said to me so I could understand what he was asking me. So I understand at least somewhat that issue.
Take care Terry
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Olga Cavalli Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2010 8:33 AM To: Adrian Kinderis Cc: KnobenW@telekom.de; stephane.vangelder@indom.com; william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Meeting Protocol for Brussels and beyond...
Hi Adrian, thanks for asking my opinion. I will make some comments on this regard from a personal perspective as a Noncom Appointee to the GNSO, and based on my experience in ICANN meetings and in other international and regional fora.
- I am in favor of open meetings, I think there is great value in multiparticipation and I support that. I also think that time and space should be well managed to allow GNSO council members to use efficiently the time of the meeting as well.
- About seats: I would find useful having name tags, and also for avoiding confusion main seats should be for GNSO Council Members.
- About questions and open mic, I suggest that the chair mention some time and order management rules at the beginning of the meeting. For example questions from other participants who are not GNSO council members could be done after the councillors have already spoken. Also it could be useful to say how much time each speaker has as a maximum, diversity in who speaks on the open mic also should be encouraged. If someone has already spoken then the floor should be given to some one else in the queue.
- About LANGUAGE: some of us and many of the general public participants have English as a second language. We all know that it is the working language of the GNSO and we accept this. But sometimes native speakers using colloquial or local expressions, or speaking very quicly, makes it difficult or even impossible for us to understand what is being said. So I would suggest that our chair could also mention this and ask for those who will speak to do it in a clear an neutral language, if possible.
Thanks and regards Olga
2010/6/3 Adrian Kinderis <adrian@ausregistry.com.au> Wolf,
That must have worked well at a conference with 20% the usual participation level and no new DAG to bang on about…
I think it will be very different in Brussels. Hence my original email.
I would love to hear from our Chair and Vice chair on this (not you Stephane!).
Adrian Kinderis
From: KnobenW@telekom.de [mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de] Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2010 9:45 PM To: stephane.vangelder@indom.com; william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch
Cc: Adrian Kinderis; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: AW: [council] Meeting Protocol for Brussels and beyond...
Stéphane, I personally felt comfortable the way you were managing the weekend sessions in Nairobi which means: councillors taking seats at the table and speaking first to the various topics. Time for open discussion was still available and seemed having been taken into schedule account. I would welcome to keep it this way.
Regards Wolf-Ulrich
Von: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Stéphane Van Gelder Gesendet: Mittwoch, 2. Juni 2010 08:37 An: William Drake Cc: Adrian Kinderis; council@gnso.icann.org Council Betreff: Re: [council] Meeting Protocol for Brussels and beyond...
Bill's summary is spot on as far as I can remember. In Nairobi, Adrian had pointed out the need to ensure Councillors get priority at our weekend sessions. As acting Chair at that meeting, I tried to do just that. My impression was that by allowing Councillors to speak first and then opening it to other members of the community, we were able to ensure that these sessions were productive for Councillors while still remaining open and useful for the larger community as well.
Stéphane
Le 2 juin 2010 à 08:20, William Drake a écrit :
Hi Adrian,
On Jun 2, 2010, at 2:24 AM, Adrian Kinderis wrote:
I would like to suggest that there be no questions from the floor during these sessions.
When we last had this conversation didn't we decide against draconian measures that would preclude community participation (and were hence poorly received by some) and for some intermediate steps like only Councilors at the table, chair gives preference to Councilor comments and right sizes the time for others, etc? If people think this has not worked sufficiently, wouldn't it be possible to simply have an offline conversation with the most relevant parties saying please respect the following ground rules, and to reiterate these at the outset of meetings?
On Jun 2, 2010, at 2:51 AM, Adrian Kinderis wrote:
I'll shout an extra round at the bar on Saturday night to make up for it :)
Hmm...didn't I hear something like this a few meetings ago, didn't materialize... :-)
BTW, on the matter of after hour amusement, perhaps I'll pass along something I pointed out to NCSG, might be of interest to some here:
On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 1:33 PM, William Drake <william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch> wrote:
Hi
Just an FYI for people who will be attending ICANN Brussels, as with Paris two summers ago, this meeting overlaps with the annual Fete de la Musique held across France, Belgium, Switzerland, etc. Just had a look at the program http://2010.fetedelamusique.be/recherches?tid=&tid_1=All&city=Bruxelles and inter alia Saturday night 19th Toots and the Maytals is playing in the park near the conference site.
Bill
I agree! To achieve satisfactory results in Brussels comparable to Nairobi requires a careful preparation and management of the debates. Any rules must be clear and communicated to all participants when we start. I see these 3 rules being necessary as well sufficient: 1. Ensure a table seat for councillors, 2. Give councillors a first right to comment, 3. Limit the discussion as it fits to the schedule planned. I wouldn't exclude the public audience from active participation (like at board meetings). To a certain extent - and that's my experience so far - their input was useful and helpful for my understanding. Regards Wolf-Ulrich _____ Von: Adrian Kinderis [mailto:adrian@ausregistry.com.au] Gesendet: Donnerstag, 3. Juni 2010 13:58 An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; stephane.vangelder@indom.com; william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Betreff: RE: [council] Meeting Protocol for Brussels and beyond... Wolf, That must have worked well at a conference with 20% the usual participation level and no new DAG to bang on about... I think it will be very different in Brussels. Hence my original email. I would love to hear from our Chair and Vice chair on this (not you Stephane!). Adrian Kinderis From: KnobenW@telekom.de [mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de] Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2010 9:45 PM To: stephane.vangelder@indom.com; william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch Cc: Adrian Kinderis; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: AW: [council] Meeting Protocol for Brussels and beyond... Stéphane, I personally felt comfortable the way you were managing the weekend sessions in Nairobi which means: councillors taking seats at the table and speaking first to the various topics. Time for open discussion was still available and seemed having been taken into schedule account. I would welcome to keep it this way. Regards Wolf-Ulrich _____ Von: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Stéphane Van Gelder Gesendet: Mittwoch, 2. Juni 2010 08:37 An: William Drake Cc: Adrian Kinderis; council@gnso.icann.org Council Betreff: Re: [council] Meeting Protocol for Brussels and beyond... Bill's summary is spot on as far as I can remember. In Nairobi, Adrian had pointed out the need to ensure Councillors get priority at our weekend sessions. As acting Chair at that meeting, I tried to do just that. My impression was that by allowing Councillors to speak first and then opening it to other members of the community, we were able to ensure that these sessions were productive for Councillors while still remaining open and useful for the larger community as well. Stéphane Le 2 juin 2010 à 08:20, William Drake a écrit : Hi Adrian, On Jun 2, 2010, at 2:24 AM, Adrian Kinderis wrote: I would like to suggest that there be no questions from the floor during these sessions. When we last had this conversation didn't we decide against draconian measures that would preclude community participation (and were hence poorly received by some) and for some intermediate steps like only Councilors at the table, chair gives preference to Councilor comments and right sizes the time for others, etc? If people think this has not worked sufficiently, wouldn't it be possible to simply have an offline conversation with the most relevant parties saying please respect the following ground rules, and to reiterate these at the outset of meetings? On Jun 2, 2010, at 2:51 AM, Adrian Kinderis wrote: I'll shout an extra round at the bar on Saturday night to make up for it :) Hmm...didn't I hear something like this a few meetings ago, didn't materialize... :-) BTW, on the matter of after hour amusement, perhaps I'll pass along something I pointed out to NCSG, might be of interest to some here: On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 1:33 PM, William Drake <william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch> wrote: Hi Just an FYI for people who will be attending ICANN Brussels, as with Paris two summers ago, this meeting overlaps with the annual Fete de la Musique held across France, Belgium, Switzerland, etc. Just had a look at the program http://2010.fetedelamusique.be/recherches?tid= <http://2010.fetedelamusique.be/recherches?tid=&tid_1=All&city=Bruxelles> &tid_1=All&city=Bruxelles and inter alia Saturday night 19th Toots and the Maytals is playing in the park near the conference site. Bill
Interesting... thanks Bill. I think you all (y'all) are missing the point about being elected representatives. The community input and participation is sufficiently covered - and if not, I have suggested mechanisms where their input is heard (via Councillors and or through the Chair). I do not consider this Draconian. Draconian would be to exclude them altogether or ask them for their input prior to the meeting. This is being organised and efficient. Don't forget, everyone gets a say. In the same vain why aren't our GNSO calls open for the public? I also think it is important to raise the profile of our Councilors (and the prestige for that matter). Folks should be made to feel comfortable to use them to convey a point of view. Also, Councilors work very hard, it could be considered a position of value to have been elected to sit at the table and to have the ability to converse directly with Staff and the Board. You never know, it may entice more folks to want to put themselves forward as Councilors if they can see an immediate benefit. I think talking to repeat offenders "offline" is a useless exercise and potentially creates a difficult and embarrassing situation. Why should we have to play police officer? I'd like to avoid that tension completely. With reference to my offer for drinks... we did it, but I had too many members of the public claiming their right for a drink and ran out of money ;) By the way, I am against any invitation or information with the words "inter alia" included. Makes me feel that only the smart people are invited... Thanks. Adrian Kinderis From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch] Sent: Wednesday, 2 June 2010 4:20 PM To: Adrian Kinderis Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Council Subject: Re: [council] Meeting Protocol for Brussels and beyond... Hi Adrian, On Jun 2, 2010, at 2:24 AM, Adrian Kinderis wrote: I would like to suggest that there be no questions from the floor during these sessions. When we last had this conversation didn't we decide against draconian measures that would preclude community participation (and were hence poorly received by some) and for some intermediate steps like only Councilors at the table, chair gives preference to Councilor comments and right sizes the time for others, etc? If people think this has not worked sufficiently, wouldn't it be possible to simply have an offline conversation with the most relevant parties saying please respect the following ground rules, and to reiterate these at the outset of meetings? On Jun 2, 2010, at 2:51 AM, Adrian Kinderis wrote: I'll shout an extra round at the bar on Saturday night to make up for it :) Hmm...didn't I hear something like this a few meetings ago, didn't materialize... :-) BTW, on the matter of after hour amusement, perhaps I'll pass along something I pointed out to NCSG, might be of interest to some here: On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 1:33 PM, William Drake <william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch<mailto:william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch>> wrote: Hi Just an FYI for people who will be attending ICANN Brussels, as with Paris two summers ago, this meeting overlaps with the annual Fete de la Musique held across France, Belgium, Switzerland, etc. Just had a look at the program http://2010.fetedelamusique.be/recherches?tid=&tid_1=All&city=Bruxelles and inter alia Saturday night 19th Toots and the Maytals is playing in the park near the conference site. Bill
Hola Adrian On Jun 2, 2010, at 8:49 AM, Adrian Kinderis wrote:
Interesting... thanks Bill.
I think you all (y’all) are missing the point about being elected representatives.
I do that a lot, sorry
The community input and participation is sufficiently covered – and if not, I have suggested mechanisms where their input is heard (via Councillors and or through the Chair). I do not consider this Draconian. Draconian would be to exclude them altogether or ask them for their input prior to the meeting. This is being organised and efficient. Don’t forget, everyone gets a say.
I guess we just have different mental models of bottom up democratic processes. Yours is strictly representative, mine's participatory. An inexact parallel but it speaks to worldviews—in related intergovernmental organization processes, most governments have made clear they would like global business, the Internet technical community, and civil society to sit quietly or not even be in the room on the grounds that they sufficiently represent all our viewpoints. For those of us who have battled to open these processes up to more diverse voices, it would be rather odd to then turn around and impose limitations in the bodies we tout as superior precisely because they allow open participation.
In the same vain why aren’t our GNSO calls open for the public?
I also think it is important to raise the profile of our Councilors (and the prestige for that matter). Folks should be made to feel comfortable to use them to convey a point of view. Also, Councilors work very hard, it could be considered a position of value to have been elected to sit at the table and to have the ability to converse directly with Staff and the Board. You never know, it may entice more folks to want to put themselves forward as Councilors if they can see an immediate benefit.
You really believe that the status (don't know about 'prestige') of Councilors is reduced if someone sitting off the table is called on to offer some thoughts after we've had our turns?
I think talking to repeat offenders “offline” is a useless exercise and potentially creates a difficult and embarrassing situation. Why should we have to play police officer? I’d like to avoid that tension completely.
I agree it's awkward and hasn't worked sufficiently, but one could always redouble the effort and up the ante a bit.
With reference to my offer for drinks... we did it, but I had too many members of the public claiming their right for a drink and ran out of money ;)
NC missed the memo :-(
By the way, I am against any invitation or information with the words “inter alia” included. Makes me feel that only the smart people are invited...
Sorry, I do sometimes slip into UN-speak. Chuck busted me the other day for referring to the "ICANN Secretariat" in a draft doc, sigh... But rest assured, it's a free open air concert and Toots will serenade all comers without regard to stakeholder group or other identities... Cheers, Bill
From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch] Sent: Wednesday, 2 June 2010 4:20 PM To: Adrian Kinderis Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Council Subject: Re: [council] Meeting Protocol for Brussels and beyond...
Hi Adrian,
On Jun 2, 2010, at 2:24 AM, Adrian Kinderis wrote:
I would like to suggest that there be no questions from the floor during these sessions.
When we last had this conversation didn't we decide against draconian measures that would preclude community participation (and were hence poorly received by some) and for some intermediate steps like only Councilors at the table, chair gives preference to Councilor comments and right sizes the time for others, etc? If people think this has not worked sufficiently, wouldn't it be possible to simply have an offline conversation with the most relevant parties saying please respect the following ground rules, and to reiterate these at the outset of meetings?
On Jun 2, 2010, at 2:51 AM, Adrian Kinderis wrote:
I'll shout an extra round at the bar on Saturday night to make up for it :)
Hmm...didn't I hear something like this a few meetings ago, didn't materialize... :-)
BTW, on the matter of after hour amusement, perhaps I'll pass along something I pointed out to NCSG, might be of interest to some here:
On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 1:33 PM, William Drake <william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch> wrote:
Hi
Just an FYI for people who will be attending ICANN Brussels, as with Paris two summers ago, this meeting overlaps with the annual Fete de la Musique held across France, Belgium, Switzerland, etc. Just had a look at the program http://2010.fetedelamusique.be/recherches?tid=&tid_1=All&city=Bruxelles and inter alia Saturday night 19th Toots and the Maytals is playing in the park near the conference site.
Bill
*********************************************************** William J. Drake Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html ***********************************************************
At the risk of a bout of email ping pong here goes... see below in red. Adrian Kinderis From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch] Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2010 6:12 PM To: Adrian Kinderis Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Council Subject: Re: [council] Meeting Protocol for Brussels and beyond... Hola Adrian On Jun 2, 2010, at 8:49 AM, Adrian Kinderis wrote: Interesting... thanks Bill. I think you all (y'all) are missing the point about being elected representatives. I do that a lot, sorry AK>> Stop it! ;) The community input and participation is sufficiently covered - and if not, I have suggested mechanisms where their input is heard (via Councillors and or through the Chair). I do not consider this Draconian. Draconian would be to exclude them altogether or ask them for their input prior to the meeting. This is being organised and efficient. Don't forget, everyone gets a say. I guess we just have different mental models of bottom up democratic processes. Yours is strictly representative, mine's participatory. AK>> How is asking a representative or the Chair to ask your question not participatory? You are still in the room. You still have a voice... An inexact parallel but it speaks to worldviews-in related intergovernmental organization processes, most governments have made clear they would like global business, the Internet technical community, and civil society to sit quietly or not even be in the room on the grounds that they sufficiently represent all our viewpoints. For those of us who have battled to open these processes up to more diverse voices, it would be rather odd to then turn around and impose limitations in the bodies we tout as superior precisely because they allow open participation. AK>> That paragraph has to be somewhat of an overreaction and emotional hoo-haa! Once again, how is my suggestion not open participation. I am not sure that my suggestion hurts anyone's civil liberties or restrict basic human rights but I could be wrong... Why aren't all these folks jumping up and down about the Board having completely closed sessions with ICANN staff? How is it any different? In the same vain why aren't our GNSO calls open for the public? AK>> I note no response here... I also think it is important to raise the profile of our Councilors (and the prestige for that matter). Folks should be made to feel comfortable to use them to convey a point of view. Also, Councilors work very hard, it could be considered a position of value to have been elected to sit at the table and to have the ability to converse directly with Staff and the Board. You never know, it may entice more folks to want to put themselves forward as Councilors if they can see an immediate benefit. You really believe that the status (don't know about 'prestige') of Councilors is reduced if someone sitting off the table is called on to offer some thoughts after we've had our turns? AK>> Yup. That is why I wrote it. I think talking to repeat offenders "offline" is a useless exercise and potentially creates a difficult and embarrassing situation. Why should we have to play police officer? I'd like to avoid that tension completely. I agree it's awkward and hasn't worked sufficiently, but one could always redouble the effort and up the ante a bit. AK>> Please propose a method and an executioner. I have enough people that think I'm a jerk and don't need any help... With reference to my offer for drinks... we did it, but I had too many members of the public claiming their right for a drink and ran out of money ;) NC missed the memo :-( By the way, I am against any invitation or information with the words "inter alia" included. Makes me feel that only the smart people are invited... Sorry, I do sometimes slip into UN-speak. Chuck busted me the other day for referring to the "ICANN Secretariat" in a draft doc, sigh... But rest assured, it's a free open air concert and Toots will serenade all comers without regard to stakeholder group or other identities... AK>> So I'll be able to participate in the concert then with my rendition of a few Led Zepplin songs played on my harmonica? I trust they don't limit participation on the stage ;) Cheers, Bill From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch] Sent: Wednesday, 2 June 2010 4:20 PM To: Adrian Kinderis Cc: council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Council Subject: Re: [council] Meeting Protocol for Brussels and beyond... Hi Adrian, On Jun 2, 2010, at 2:24 AM, Adrian Kinderis wrote: I would like to suggest that there be no questions from the floor during these sessions. When we last had this conversation didn't we decide against draconian measures that would preclude community participation (and were hence poorly received by some) and for some intermediate steps like only Councilors at the table, chair gives preference to Councilor comments and right sizes the time for others, etc? If people think this has not worked sufficiently, wouldn't it be possible to simply have an offline conversation with the most relevant parties saying please respect the following ground rules, and to reiterate these at the outset of meetings? On Jun 2, 2010, at 2:51 AM, Adrian Kinderis wrote: I'll shout an extra round at the bar on Saturday night to make up for it :) Hmm...didn't I hear something like this a few meetings ago, didn't materialize... :-) BTW, on the matter of after hour amusement, perhaps I'll pass along something I pointed out to NCSG, might be of interest to some here: On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 1:33 PM, William Drake <william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch<mailto:william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch>> wrote: Hi Just an FYI for people who will be attending ICANN Brussels, as with Paris two summers ago, this meeting overlaps with the annual Fete de la Musique held across France, Belgium, Switzerland, etc. Just had a look at the program http://2010.fetedelamusique.be/recherches?tid=&tid_1=All&city=Bruxelles and inter alia Saturday night 19th Toots and the Maytals is playing in the park near the conference site. Bill *********************************************************** William J. Drake Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch<mailto:william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch> www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html ***********************************************************
Last time around the bend, then back to work... On Jun 2, 2010, at 11:39 AM, Adrian Kinderis wrote:
I guess we just have different mental models of bottom up democratic processes. Yours is strictly representative, mine's participatory.
AK>> How is asking a representative or the Chair to ask your question not participatory? You are still in the room. You still have a voice…
As a matter of principle I think people should be able to speak in their own voices, elaborate, and follow up rather than settling for someone else reading a short statement or whatever that won't their nuances etc. Pretty artificial, and would create quite the atmosphere in the room...
An inexact parallel but it speaks to worldviews—in related intergovernmental organization processes, most governments have made clear they would like global business, the Internet technical community, and civil society to sit quietly or not even be in the room on the grounds that they sufficiently represent all our viewpoints. For those of us who have battled to open these processes up to more diverse voices, it would be rather odd to then turn around and impose limitations in the bodies we tout as superior precisely because they allow open participation.
AK>> That paragraph has to be somewhat of an overreaction and emotional hoo-haa!
Yup, dat's me
Once again, how is my suggestion not open participation. I am not sure that my suggestion hurts anyone’s civil liberties or restrict basic human rights but I could be wrong… Why aren’t all these folks jumping up and down about the Board having completely closed sessions with ICANN staff? How is it any different?
I'd be happy to jump on that one. In fact, I'd be happy if Council were to express such concerns with the RT, if they're shared. FWIW NCSG and ALAC recently sent a letter to the board expressing concerns about the non-transparent and sometimes problematic briefing docs provided to board by staff. http://www.atlarge.icann.org/correspondence/correspondence-4-20may10-en.htm
In the same vain why aren’t our GNSO calls open for the public?
AK>> I note no response here...
In principle, it wouldn't bother me if "Councilors speak first and non-Councilors keep it brief and to the point" rules applied, a slot could be saved at the end of each topic or call for a quick question or intervention. In practice, since we struggle to get through the agendas in two hours anyway, one imagines the time available would get squeezed to zilch quite often, in which case comments we didn't get to could be sent by email.
I also think it is important to raise the profile of our Councilors (and the prestige for that matter). Folks should be made to feel comfortable to use them to convey a point of view. Also, Councilors work very hard, it could be considered a position of value to have been elected to sit at the table and to have the ability to converse directly with Staff and the Board. You never know, it may entice more folks to want to put themselves forward as Councilors if they can see an immediate benefit.
You really believe that the status (don't know about 'prestige') of Councilors is reduced if someone sitting off the table is called on to offer some thoughts after we've had our turns?
AK>> Yup. That is why I wrote it.
I think talking to repeat offenders “offline” is a useless exercise and potentially creates a difficult and embarrassing situation. Why should we have to play police officer? I’d like to avoid that tension completely.
I agree it's awkward and hasn't worked sufficiently, but one could always redouble the effort and up the ante a bit.
AK>> Please propose a method and an executioner. I have enough people that think I’m a jerk and don’t need any help…
Well, I don't want to put anyone on the spot, but we do have people in leadership positions. Or we could designate a diplomatically deft ambassador; would you like to volunteer? ;-)
With reference to my offer for drinks... we did it, but I had too many members of the public claiming their right for a drink and ran out of money ;)
NC missed the memo :-(
By the way, I am against any invitation or information with the words “inter alia” included. Makes me feel that only the smart people are invited...
Sorry, I do sometimes slip into UN-speak. Chuck busted me the other day for referring to the "ICANN Secretariat" in a draft doc, sigh... But rest assured, it's a free open air concert and Toots will serenade all comers without regard to stakeholder group or other identities...
AK>> So I’ll be able to participate in the concert then with my rendition of a few Led Zepplin songs played on my harmonica? I trust they don’t limit participation on the stage ;)
As long as you can say I and I feel irie without laughing and have a better voice than Robert Plant, Toots might accommodate you... Wouldn't be hard... Cheers, Bill
From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch] Sent: Wednesday, 2 June 2010 4:20 PM To: Adrian Kinderis Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Council Subject: Re: [council] Meeting Protocol for Brussels and beyond...
Hi Adrian,
On Jun 2, 2010, at 2:24 AM, Adrian Kinderis wrote:
I would like to suggest that there be no questions from the floor during these sessions.
When we last had this conversation didn't we decide against draconian measures that would preclude community participation (and were hence poorly received by some) and for some intermediate steps like only Councilors at the table, chair gives preference to Councilor comments and right sizes the time for others, etc? If people think this has not worked sufficiently, wouldn't it be possible to simply have an offline conversation with the most relevant parties saying please respect the following ground rules, and to reiterate these at the outset of meetings?
On Jun 2, 2010, at 2:51 AM, Adrian Kinderis wrote:
I'll shout an extra round at the bar on Saturday night to make up for it :)
Hmm...didn't I hear something like this a few meetings ago, didn't materialize... :-)
BTW, on the matter of after hour amusement, perhaps I'll pass along something I pointed out to NCSG, might be of interest to some here:
On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 1:33 PM, William Drake <william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch> wrote:
Hi
Just an FYI for people who will be attending ICANN Brussels, as with Paris two summers ago, this meeting overlaps with the annual Fete de la Musique held across France, Belgium, Switzerland, etc. Just had a look at the program http://2010.fetedelamusique.be/recherches?tid=&tid_1=All&city=Bruxelles and inter alia Saturday night 19th Toots and the Maytals is playing in the park near the conference site.
Bill
*********************************************************** William J. Drake Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html ***********************************************************
*********************************************************** William J. Drake Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html ***********************************************************
I continue to share these same frustrations, which I expressed in Seoul. I missed Nairobi, as did many other Councilors and community members, so it should not be taken as an example. I expect a large crowd for our meetings on the weekend in Brussels, many of whom will try to practice the speeches they will then give at multiple public fora during the week, including the Council meeting on Wednesday. So that would be an annoying waste of time and should not be allowed. It provides far undue influence to self-interested individuals/lobbyists, who seek to take advantage of the smaller forum to make their points directly to Staff and/or the Council. Council sessions should be for Councilors, only; observers have plenty of other fora to make their points, including the public forum at the Council meeting on Wednesday. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1 (415) 738-8087 http://rodenbaugh.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Kinderis Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2010 5:25 PM To: council@gnso.icann.org Council Subject: [council] Meeting Protocol for Brussels and beyond... Councilors, I have been increasingly frustrated at the GNSO Sessions (Saturday and Sunday) of the ICANN Meetings at how they have often been used as a public forum session. Often, these sessions are our only direct access to staff and it is imperative that we, as elected representatives of our Stakeholder Groups, have appropriate time to ask questions and seek clarifications to the many issues before us. I would like to suggest that there be no questions from the floor during these sessions. The GNSO, by definition, is representative of the Community. I would suggest that, should a member of the audience wish to ask a question that they do it through their elected representative or, perhaps, through the Chair (not so sure about this though). This would allow a more structured approach to the questions and also fair allocation and management of time on each topic. I also suggest that each Councilor have placards placed in front of them (doublesided so they can be ) that details both name and representative Stakeholder Group. An audience member could then simply approach the appropriate Councilor and request that a question be asked on their behalf. This would also allow for remote participants to send questions and have their voices heard (albeit through Councilors). I would also like to potentially have allocated seating for the meetings, as seats are often taken up by "members of the public" and Councilors are relegated to the bleachers. It is an official GNSO Council meeting and should be treated as such. Please don't misinterpret the intention here, I am supportive of audience participation. I am just trying to get structure and efficiency to our meetings. I would be happy to hear thoughts on this. Thanks and see you all in Brussels. Adrian Kinderis
Mike Adrian, you, and I seem to have the same concerns! And I will be very concerned/upset if the "Council members only" are not designated at the table. My first experience was that I was not at the table as it was already full and had no idea what my role or place was for that reason. Sorry I will not be relegated to the back row ever again without protest as it OUR meeting! I'm perfectly fine with "open mic" sessions/times for the constituencies to voice their individual questions of staff/council but it is still OUR meeting. Take care Terry -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2010 4:46 PM To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Meeting Protocol for Brussels and beyond... I continue to share these same frustrations, which I expressed in Seoul. I missed Nairobi, as did many other Councilors and community members, so it should not be taken as an example. I expect a large crowd for our meetings on the weekend in Brussels, many of whom will try to practice the speeches they will then give at multiple public fora during the week, including the Council meeting on Wednesday. So that would be an annoying waste of time and should not be allowed. It provides far undue influence to self-interested individuals/lobbyists, who seek to take advantage of the smaller forum to make their points directly to Staff and/or the Council. Council sessions should be for Councilors, only; observers have plenty of other fora to make their points, including the public forum at the Council meeting on Wednesday. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1 (415) 738-8087 http://rodenbaugh.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Kinderis Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2010 5:25 PM To: council@gnso.icann.org Council Subject: [council] Meeting Protocol for Brussels and beyond... Councilors, I have been increasingly frustrated at the GNSO Sessions (Saturday and Sunday) of the ICANN Meetings at how they have often been used as a public forum session. Often, these sessions are our only direct access to staff and it is imperative that we, as elected representatives of our Stakeholder Groups, have appropriate time to ask questions and seek clarifications to the many issues before us. I would like to suggest that there be no questions from the floor during these sessions. The GNSO, by definition, is representative of the Community. I would suggest that, should a member of the audience wish to ask a question that they do it through their elected representative or, perhaps, through the Chair (not so sure about this though). This would allow a more structured approach to the questions and also fair allocation and management of time on each topic. I also suggest that each Councilor have placards placed in front of them (doublesided so they can be ) that details both name and representative Stakeholder Group. An audience member could then simply approach the appropriate Councilor and request that a question be asked on their behalf. This would also allow for remote participants to send questions and have their voices heard (albeit through Councilors). I would also like to potentially have allocated seating for the meetings, as seats are often taken up by "members of the public" and Councilors are relegated to the bleachers. It is an official GNSO Council meeting and should be treated as such. Please don't misinterpret the intention here, I am supportive of audience participation. I am just trying to get structure and efficiency to our meetings. I would be happy to hear thoughts on this. Thanks and see you all in Brussels. Adrian Kinderis
Adrian / all, To chime in with the Registries' perspective on this issue, we feel strongly that the weekend sessions should be open to everyone - after all, these are 'GNSO sessions' and not 'GNSO Council sessions'. New TLDs are very much a community issue and everyone should have a chance to participate. If it's simply a matter of organization around fielding comments, that's fine, but asking for some sort of exclusivity for Councilors is a dangerous path. If that's the route we want to go down, we'd want to be very sure that comments made by Councilors are a reflection of their SG's views only and not personal views. Asking members of the public to convey their questions and thoughts via Councilors is neither practical nor justified. Thanks, Caroline. -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Kinderis Sent: 02 June 2010 01:25 To: council@gnso.icann.org Council Subject: [council] Meeting Protocol for Brussels and beyond... Councilors, I have been increasingly frustrated at the GNSO Sessions (Saturday and Sunday) of the ICANN Meetings at how they have often been used as a public forum session. Often, these sessions are our only direct access to staff and it is imperative that we, as elected representatives of our Stakeholder Groups, have appropriate time to ask questions and seek clarifications to the many issues before us. I would like to suggest that there be no questions from the floor during these sessions. The GNSO, by definition, is representative of the Community. I would suggest that, should a member of the audience wish to ask a question that they do it through their elected representative or, perhaps, through the Chair (not so sure about this though). This would allow a more structured approach to the questions and also fair allocation and management of time on each topic. I also suggest that each Councilor have placards placed in front of them (doublesided so they can be ) that details both name and representative Stakeholder Group. An audience member could then simply approach the appropriate Councilor and request that a question be asked on their behalf. This would also allow for remote participants to send questions and have their voices heard (albeit through Councilors). I would also like to potentially have allocated seating for the meetings, as seats are often taken up by "members of the public" and Councilors are relegated to the bleachers. It is an official GNSO Council meeting and should be treated as such. Please don't misinterpret the intention here, I am supportive of audience participation. I am just trying to get structure and efficiency to our meetings. I would be happy to hear thoughts on this. Thanks and see you all in Brussels. Adrian Kinderis
Hi Stéphane On Jun 1, 2010, at 10:58 PM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
Councillors,
The Council chairs have been approached by the Accountability and Transparency Review Team with an enquiry about a possible meeting in Brussels.
They told us they are having a public forum session on the Monday afternoon, but that they would also be happy to meet with ACs and SOs directly. They are trying to arrange a meeting with the GNSO SGs, but wanted to know if the Council as a whole was interested in meeting. They are meeting with the Board, the GAC and ALAC on Sunday afternoon and asked whether the GNSO Council could meet with them on Sunday morning.
However, it has proven impossible to fit such a meeting into our already very full Brussels agenda without squeezing something else. Therefore, it would be useful to get an idea of whether Councillors think there would be value in meeting with the RT in light of the fact that meetings are already arranged with each SG. In fact, it would also be useful to know which SGs have a meeting planned with the RT.
NCSG will meet with the RT, but the time will undoubtedly be taken up completely with concerns specific to us (there being a lot). We probably won't be able to get into anything pertaining to concerns of the Council or larger community. So for us at least, a meeting would not be redundant. Personally I think it could be very useful, the RT really does need more input and data points to work with.
If people do want the Council as a whole to meet with the RT, then the question becomes where can we fit that meeting in our Brussels agenda. On the other hand, if separate SG meetings are being arranged, is there really any need for the Council as a whole to meet with the RT?
Is there a revised draft schedule somewhere reflecting the most recent changes you mentioned? Bill
Stéphane, The Registries Stakeholder Group plans to meet with the RT on Monday of ICANN week. As Bill states, if we can find the time, I think it would do no harm for the Council to meet with the RT. This is a critical piece of work for the community. Many thanks, Caroline. -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder Sent: 01 June 2010 21:58 To: council@gnso.icann.org Council Subject: [council] GNSO Council meeting with the AT Review Team Councillors, The Council chairs have been approached by the Accountability and Transparency Review Team with an enquiry about a possible meeting in Brussels. They told us they are having a public forum session on the Monday afternoon, but that they would also be happy to meet with ACs and SOs directly. They are trying to arrange a meeting with the GNSO SGs, but wanted to know if the Council as a whole was interested in meeting. They are meeting with the Board, the GAC and ALAC on Sunday afternoon and asked whether the GNSO Council could meet with them on Sunday morning. However, it has proven impossible to fit such a meeting into our already very full Brussels agenda without squeezing something else. Therefore, it would be useful to get an idea of whether Councillors think there would be value in meeting with the RT in light of the fact that meetings are already arranged with each SG. In fact, it would also be useful to know which SGs have a meeting planned with the RT. If people do want the Council as a whole to meet with the RT, then the question becomes where can we fit that meeting in our Brussels agenda. On the other hand, if separate SG meetings are being arranged, is there really any need for the Council as a whole to meet with the RT? Stéphane
Thanks to you both for your replies. Glen and I are working on the draft agenda and I'll get back to the Council asap with any possible slots for this meeting. Stéphane Le 2 juin 2010 à 11:34, Caroline Greer a écrit :
Stéphane,
The Registries Stakeholder Group plans to meet with the RT on Monday of ICANN week.
As Bill states, if we can find the time, I think it would do no harm for the Council to meet with the RT. This is a critical piece of work for the community.
Many thanks,
Caroline.
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder Sent: 01 June 2010 21:58 To: council@gnso.icann.org Council Subject: [council] GNSO Council meeting with the AT Review Team
Councillors,
The Council chairs have been approached by the Accountability and Transparency Review Team with an enquiry about a possible meeting in Brussels.
They told us they are having a public forum session on the Monday afternoon, but that they would also be happy to meet with ACs and SOs directly. They are trying to arrange a meeting with the GNSO SGs, but wanted to know if the Council as a whole was interested in meeting. They are meeting with the Board, the GAC and ALAC on Sunday afternoon and asked whether the GNSO Council could meet with them on Sunday morning.
However, it has proven impossible to fit such a meeting into our already very full Brussels agenda without squeezing something else. Therefore, it would be useful to get an idea of whether Councillors think there would be value in meeting with the RT in light of the fact that meetings are already arranged with each SG. In fact, it would also be useful to know which SGs have a meeting planned with the RT.
If people do want the Council as a whole to meet with the RT, then the question becomes where can we fit that meeting in our Brussels agenda. On the other hand, if separate SG meetings are being arranged, is there really any need for the Council as a whole to meet with the RT?
Stéphane
I "third" Bill's and Caroline's sentiments, and note that the current schedule for Brussels seems to show 2 meetings between the GAC and the RT (three if you count the one between the RT and the GAC-Board joint working group). Cheers Mary Mary W S Wong Professor of Law & Chair, Graduate IP Programs Franklin Pierce Law Center Two White Street Concord, NH 03301 USA Email: mwong@piercelaw.edu Phone: 1-603-513-5143 Webpage: http://www.piercelaw.edu/marywong/index.php Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584
From: "Caroline Greer" <cgreer@mtld.mobi> To:Stéphane Van Gelder<stephane.vangelder@indom.com>, <council@gnso.icann.org> Date: 6/2/2010 5:38 AM Subject: RE: [council] GNSO Council meeting with the AT Review Team Stéphane, The Registries Stakeholder Group plans to meet with the RT on Monday of ICANN week. As Bill states, if we can find the time, I think it would do no harm for the Council to meet with the RT. This is a critical piece of work for the community. Many thanks, Caroline. -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder Sent: 01 June 2010 21:58 To: council@gnso.icann.org Council Subject: [council] GNSO Council meeting with the AT Review Team Councillors, The Council chairs have been approached by the Accountability and Transparency Review Team with an enquiry about a possible meeting in Brussels. They told us they are having a public forum session on the Monday afternoon, but that they would also be happy to meet with ACs and SOs directly. They are trying to arrange a meeting with the GNSO SGs, but wanted to know if the Council as a whole was interested in meeting. They are meeting with the Board, the GAC and ALAC on Sunday afternoon and asked whether the GNSO Council could meet with them on Sunday morning. However, it has proven impossible to fit such a meeting into our already very full Brussels agenda without squeezing something else. Therefore, it would be useful to get an idea of whether Councillors think there would be value in meeting with the RT in light of the fact that meetings are already arranged with each SG. In fact, it would also be useful to know which SGs have a meeting planned with the RT. If people do want the Council as a whole to meet with the RT, then the question becomes where can we fit that meeting in our Brussels agenda. On the other hand, if separate SG meetings are being arranged, is there really any need for the Council as a whole to meet with the RT? Stéphane Pierce Law | University of New Hampshire - An Innovative Paternership
participants (10)
-
Adrian Kinderis -
Caroline Greer -
Gomes, Chuck -
KnobenW＠telekom.de -
Mary Wong -
Mike Rodenbaugh -
Olga Cavalli -
Stéphane Van Gelder -
Terry L Davis, P.E. -
William Drake