Avri, fellow Council members I am becoming increasingly concerned about the bureaucratisation of Council work. We seem to have slipped into Council meetings every 14 days whereas since Council's inception under Bruce and previous chairman, we always managed calls every month. Do we have a significantly increased workload now than before ? No Are we producing more output and more implemented policy than before ? No. Instead I fear we are wasting time on calls with work that should be done on the list and adding unnecessary duplication. Examples: - talking through the agenda at the start of the call - surely we can all read ? - talking through the work plan at the end of each call - surely this admin item is best left as a web page ? - seeing multiple motions on the same issue - surely the job of an efficient chair is to resolve these issues before a call, and present one motion to Council that has a good chance of success? - voting on motions that fail - again more background work is needed - voting on procedural motions - eg the time line for the WHOIS study - in the past this would have been proposed by the Chair on list and acted upon unless there was opposition - - confusing Council with multiple duplicate mailings before a call - in the past this coordination was done off list between the chair and secretariat, and then one clear mail sent to the list by the secretariat with all proposed motions in full text. - use of non ICANN work spaces like Google - what is the value of this above a list e-mail ( I cannot edit it on Google) ? - discussion on admin matters such as establishing a new group to discuss an issue - surely this is best done on list ? In short, more focus on output than process, more focus on policy than admin and consequently calls every 30 days would be welcome. Philip
Hi, Thanks for the thought provoking post. I will respond to a few of the issues with my personal and do hope others will join in the discussion as it does have something to do with how we see ourselves as a group. And on how we do our work. On 3 Jan 2008, at 03:34, Philip Sheppard wrote:
Avri, fellow Council members
I am becoming increasingly concerned about the bureaucratisation of Council work.
As I understand bureaucratization it is involves the creations of layers of staffers who build a complex system whereby they can make the decisions instead of the elected representatives. While I do believe we are talking about details, and process more, I am not sure I understand where we have created extra bureaus. I also would agree that e, Chuck and I, have tried to regularize some of our procedures and perhaps this is similar to bureaucratization.
We seem to have slipped into Council meetings every 14 days whereas since Council's inception under Bruce and previous chairman, we always managed calls every month.
I would prefer meeting monthly. However, after the LA meeting, it looked like we had a lot of issues to work through in a short time. So I suggested that we meet every 2 weeks through the shortened period between LA and ND to try and get as much done as possible during a short time that was dotted with holidays. While I would say we were excited about the possibility, the council did agree.
Do we have a significantly increased workload now than before ? No
I believe the answer to this is yes. I certainly believe we have more issues on the table then at any time since I joined the council.
Are we producing more output and more implemented policy than before ? No.
This remains to be seen. We have sent a few things along to board. I am not sure how much implemented policy there is relative to the past and the reasons for the amount of time it takes for thing to go from the council to the implementation stage. We have only been doing the 2 meetings a month for a few months now so I would not expect to see a great deal implemented yet. I do think we are moving along on some of our tasks.
Instead I fear we are wasting time on calls with work that should be done on the list and adding unnecessary duplication. Examples: - talking through the agenda at the start of the call - surely we can all read ?
This take a few minutes at best. Perhaps I go into too much detail when walking through it. It is really meant to make sure that we all have the same view of what we are going to spend time on. And to give everyone the ability to suggest a change.
- talking through the work plan at the end of each call - surely this admin item is best left as a web page ?
This is possible. I think of of walking through the list as a way to keep us on track on all the work we are doing. I put it at the end, and on those occasions when there are no issues with it, we can go through it quite rapidly. And when we run out of time we often skip it.
- seeing multiple motions on the same issue - surely the job of an efficient chair is to resolve these issues before a call, and present one motion to Council that has a good chance of success?
But there is needs to be a balance between efficiency gained by having a chair doing more back channel work and open participation where the council view the range of possibilities and makes decisions as the representative body. I have opted for a method that allows more open discussion on the various possibilities. My hope, is that in seeing the motions and on discussing them on the list and by suggesting edits we would eventually, by working directly and openly arrive at a motion we can all agree with. When I created the motions page on google it was meant to be a experiment to see if we could learn to work this way. Well that and as a means of having a 'whiteboard' visible to all of us during the meeting.
- voting on motions that fail - again more background work is needed
I believe that is is important to know what is decided against. And that a failed motion has almost as much content as a successful motion. It is a definite declaration of what the council does not wish to do. The other possibility is to let things that do not have support drop quietly on the floor. In this case there is often an uncertainty in those who depend on the council and its work on the council position on these issues. while I believe we should talk things out completely, once al of the viewpoints have been stated, we should decide whether to go ahead with something or not.
- voting on procedural motions - eg the time line for the WHOIS study - in the past this would have been proposed by the Chair on list and acted upon unless there was opposition -
We made a specific decision that all schedule changes would be explicit and would be voted on by council. This was a way to keep us responsible for our schedules and to try and control some of the perpetual slippage in schedules that was our past tradition. I certainly have no problem with the council accepting such a scheduling motion by consensus (if not one has objections), then of actually holding a vote. I do think that if it is to be real schedule, it needs to be have explicit buy in from the council as the schedule should have some degree of commitment from us.
- confusing Council with multiple duplicate mailings before a call - in the past this coordination was done off list between the chair and secretariat, and then one clear mail sent to the list by the secretariat with all proposed motions in full text.
My reason for doing this was to give us the ability to start a discussion email thread on each of the motions separately, which I tend to find less confusing in the long run. If others find it more confusing, I can certainly do as yo suggest.
- use of non ICANN work spaces like Google - what is the value of this above a list e-mail ( I cannot edit it on Google) ?
ICANN does not have such a capability. I checked and if they had had such a capability, I would have used it. In terms of google docs you should be able to edit it. Any council member can go to docs.google.com, log in with their email address and edit any of the motions, add motions etc... The url I send out is only the one used by the anyone to read the motions. If anyone of the council can't access and edit these motions in google, please check with me to make sure I have subscribed the correct mail address.
- discussion on admin matters such as establishing a new group to discuss an issue - surely this is best done on list ?
I agree and if we did discuss these things on the list, we could just glance through them quickly in the meetings. Do you have an suggestions on the issues currently before the council: - the design team for drafting the proxy voting motion? (incidentally, the discussion of the memo is the primary agenda item)
In short, more focus on output than process, more focus on policy than admin and consequently calls every 30 days would be welcome.
Philip
Again, thank you for our thought provoking note. I do believe it is important that the GSNO council members be comfortable with and approve of the the processes we use. a.
Hello All,
- use of non ICANN work spaces like Google - what is the value of this above a list e-mail ( I cannot edit it on Google) ?
ICANN does not have such a capability. I checked and if they had had such a capability, I would have used it.
For information, the tools the Board is currently using include: (1) Email mailing list - similar use as per the Council mailing list (2) Private ICANN Board website - used for storing Board papers, agendas etc (3) ICANN Board Wiki website - used for coordinating papers, minutes etc associated with committees within the Board (4) Jabber room - this is where Board members can use instant messaging during board meetings. It can enhance the interactions in a large group teleconference - e.g those wanting to speak on a topic and note their intent to speak without interrupting a current speaker, some draft text on motions can be shared this way. Members can also note support for a particular statement being made by other members etc. - the equivalent of nodding heads in person. I agree that a shared whiteboard equivalent can be useful - the difficulty has been selecting something that all can access. I tried some Microsoft software at one point, but not all could access it. We also trialled Shinkuro document sharing software for awhile - particularly within the new gTLD work, which did have some support for a shared whiteboard equivalent. The Google software introduced by Avri is probably as good as any approach. The Council could request that staff investigate options in this area further for use by the ICANN Board, Councils, task forces etc. The Council may wish to trial the jabber solution. I know that it is used by at least the Board and the Security and Stability Advisory Committee during teleconferences. It probably needs to be set up at the next face-to-face meeting to ensure that everyone has the necessary software, and that it is configured appropriately. Regards, Bruce
Hi, Thanks for the suggestions. I think this is a great idea. And these days a lot of IM tools also support jabber. I know, however, that some companies are stict about what they let people do on comapny laptops and from with the VPN. Does everyone support Jabber? Also does ICANN have its own jabber server or are they using an external one? thanks a. On 3 Jan 2008, at 17:13, Bruce Tonkin wrote:
(4) Jabber room - this is where Board members can use instant messaging during board meetings. It can enhance the interactions in a large group teleconference - e.g those wanting to speak on a topic and note their intent to speak without interrupting a current speaker, some draft text on motions can be shared this way. Members can also note support for a particular statement being made by other members etc. - the equivalent of nodding heads in person.
Hello Avri,
I think this is a great idea. And these days a lot of IM tools also support jabber. I know, however, that some companies are stict about what they let people do on comapny laptops and from with the VPN. Does everyone support Jabber?
Also does ICANN have its own jabber server or are they using an external one?
Yes - ICANN does run a Jabber server. jabber.icann.org I would assume that ICANN could also set up Jabber ID's on the server for those that don't have their own Jabber IDs. There are lots of clients available for different operating systems. E.g see: http://www.jabber.org/software/clients.shtml For more information about Jabber see: http://www.jabber.org/about/overview.shtml With respect to firewalls: "If your firewall administrators will allow outgoing connections to port 5222 (5223 for SSL), you can use Jabber without any worries. If not, some Jabber clients support the ability to talk through at least certain kinds of proxy servers (most often SOCKS servers). In addition, some Jabber developers are working on an http service that will enable you to use Jabber over the web, but it is still alpha code." I know Jabber works within my corporate network through firewalls, VPNs etc - the Board members work for a diverse range of organisations - and most seem to have access - no guarantees of course. The protocols used are Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP), an open XML communications technology developed by the Jabber open-source community in 1999, formalized by the IETF in 2002-2004, and continuously extended through the standards process of the XMPP Standards Foundation. Regards, Bruce Tonkin
Hi Bruce, Avri and all, I don't foresee a problem with people using our jabber server but before I do a blanket offer, let me run it through the system and make sure there's no issues from management or IT. If there are no issues, I'll be happy to set up users for those that need it and create a persistent chat room for the GNSO as well. Happy New Year to you all, Steve On Jan 3, 2008, at 3:21 PM, Bruce Tonkin wrote:
Hello Avri,
I think this is a great idea. And these days a lot of IM tools also support jabber. I know, however, that some companies are stict about what they let people do on comapny laptops and from with the VPN. Does everyone support Jabber?
Also does ICANN have its own jabber server or are they using an external one?
Yes - ICANN does run a Jabber server.
jabber.icann.org
I would assume that ICANN could also set up Jabber ID's on the server for those that don't have their own Jabber IDs.
There are lots of clients available for different operating systems.
E.g see: http://www.jabber.org/software/clients.shtml
For more information about Jabber see: http://www.jabber.org/about/overview.shtml
With respect to firewalls: "If your firewall administrators will allow outgoing connections to port 5222 (5223 for SSL), you can use Jabber without any worries. If not, some Jabber clients support the ability to talk through at least certain kinds of proxy servers (most often SOCKS servers). In addition, some Jabber developers are working on an http service that will enable you to use Jabber over the web, but it is still alpha code."
I know Jabber works within my corporate network through firewalls, VPNs etc - the Board members work for a diverse range of organisations - and most seem to have access - no guarantees of course. The protocols used are Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP), an open XML communications technology developed by the Jabber open-source community in 1999, formalized by the IETF in 2002-2004, and continuously extended through the standards process of the XMPP Standards Foundation.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
Thanks Bruce. Is a Jabber room dependent on a particular instant messaging program? Chuck -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 5:13 PM To: Council GNSO Subject: [council] Regarding tools to support conference calls etc Hello All,
- use of non ICANN work spaces like Google - what is the value of this above a list e-mail ( I cannot edit it on Google) ?
ICANN does not have such a capability. I checked and if they had had such a capability, I would have used it.
For information, the tools the Board is currently using include: (1) Email mailing list - similar use as per the Council mailing list (2) Private ICANN Board website - used for storing Board papers, agendas etc (3) ICANN Board Wiki website - used for coordinating papers, minutes etc associated with committees within the Board (4) Jabber room - this is where Board members can use instant messaging during board meetings. It can enhance the interactions in a large group teleconference - e.g those wanting to speak on a topic and note their intent to speak without interrupting a current speaker, some draft text on motions can be shared this way. Members can also note support for a particular statement being made by other members etc. - the equivalent of nodding heads in person. I agree that a shared whiteboard equivalent can be useful - the difficulty has been selecting something that all can access. I tried some Microsoft software at one point, but not all could access it. We also trialled Shinkuro document sharing software for awhile - particularly within the new gTLD work, which did have some support for a shared whiteboard equivalent. The Google software introduced by Avri is probably as good as any approach. The Council could request that staff investigate options in this area further for use by the ICANN Board, Councils, task forces etc. The Council may wish to trial the jabber solution. I know that it is used by at least the Board and the Security and Stability Advisory Committee during teleconferences. It probably needs to be set up at the next face-to-face meeting to ensure that everyone has the necessary software, and that it is configured appropriately. Regards, Bruce
hi, yes. jabber - see http://www.jabber.org/ a. avri@jabber.psg.com On 3 Jan 2008, at 17:57, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Thanks Bruce. Is a Jabber room dependent on a particular instant messaging program?
Chuck
Thanks Bruce - this is helpful Philip
Hello All,
- use of non ICANN work spaces like Google - what is the value of this above a list e-mail ( I cannot edit it on Google) ?
ICANN does not have such a capability. I checked and if they had had such a capability, I would have used it.
For information, the tools the Board is currently using include:
(1) Email mailing list - similar use as per the Council mailing list
(2) Private ICANN Board website - used for storing Board papers, agendas etc
(3) ICANN Board Wiki website - used for coordinating papers, minutes etc associated with committees within the Board
(4) Jabber room - this is where Board members can use instant messaging during board meetings. It can enhance the interactions in a large group teleconference - e.g those wanting to speak on a topic and note their intent to speak without interrupting a current speaker, some draft text on motions can be shared this way. Members can also note support for a particular statement being made by other members etc. - the equivalent of nodding heads in person.
I agree that a shared whiteboard equivalent can be useful - the difficulty has been selecting something that all can access. I tried some Microsoft software at one point, but not all could access it. We also trialled Shinkuro document sharing software for awhile - particularly within the new gTLD work, which did have some support for a shared whiteboard equivalent. The Google software introduced by Avri is probably as good as any approach. The Council could request that staff investigate options in this area further for use by the ICANN Board, Councils, task forces etc.
The Council may wish to trial the jabber solution. I know that it is used by at least the Board and the Security and Stability Advisory Committee during teleconferences. It probably needs to be set up at the next face-to-face meeting to ensure that everyone has the necessary software, and that it is configured appropriately.
Regards, Bruce
I especially like the idea of a private Council wiki which can be run and maintained by ICANN staff. One place for all documents and proposed motions (editable to all council members) agendas, calling details, minutes ... Sounds great to me. Lets gear up for WEB 2.0 working methods ;). tom -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Bruce Tonkin Gesendet: Donnerstag, 3. Januar 2008 23:13 An: Council GNSO Betreff: [council] Regarding tools to support conference calls etc Hello All,
- use of non ICANN work spaces like Google - what is the value of this above a list e-mail ( I cannot edit it on Google) ?
ICANN does not have such a capability. I checked and if they had had such a capability, I would have used it.
For information, the tools the Board is currently using include: (1) Email mailing list - similar use as per the Council mailing list (2) Private ICANN Board website - used for storing Board papers, agendas etc (3) ICANN Board Wiki website - used for coordinating papers, minutes etc associated with committees within the Board (4) Jabber room - this is where Board members can use instant messaging during board meetings. It can enhance the interactions in a large group teleconference - e.g those wanting to speak on a topic and note their intent to speak without interrupting a current speaker, some draft text on motions can be shared this way. Members can also note support for a particular statement being made by other members etc. - the equivalent of nodding heads in person. I agree that a shared whiteboard equivalent can be useful - the difficulty has been selecting something that all can access. I tried some Microsoft software at one point, but not all could access it. We also trialled Shinkuro document sharing software for awhile - particularly within the new gTLD work, which did have some support for a shared whiteboard equivalent. The Google software introduced by Avri is probably as good as any approach. The Council could request that staff investigate options in this area further for use by the ICANN Board, Councils, task forces etc. The Council may wish to trial the jabber solution. I know that it is used by at least the Board and the Security and Stability Advisory Committee during teleconferences. It probably needs to be set up at the next face-to-face meeting to ensure that everyone has the necessary software, and that it is configured appropriately. Regards, Bruce
Thanks for the observations Philip. I strongly support your intent to make our meetings more efficient and have added my comments to your observations below. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 3:35 AM To: 'Council GNSO' Subject: [council] Council work Avri, fellow Council members I am becoming increasingly concerned about the bureaucratisation of Council work. We seem to have slipped into Council meetings every 14 days whereas since Council's inception under Bruce and previous chairman, we always managed calls every month. Do we have a significantly increased workload now than before ? No Are we producing more output and more implemented policy than before ? No. Instead I fear we are wasting time on calls with work that should be done on the list and adding unnecessary duplication. Examples: - talking through the agenda at the start of the call - surely we can all read ? CG: I think your point is well taken and that a brief opportunity for members to suggest any changes in the agenda would suffice. I would add the following suggestion to yours: instead of requiring in-meeting approval of the minutes we could establish a procedure that allows for automatic approval of the minutes if there are no edits suggested within a certain period of time after they are distributed to the list. - talking through the work plan at the end of each call - surely this admin item is best left as a web page ? CG: We really do not spend much time on this item but we could probably handle it more quickly by restricting our discussion to any items where there is new information to share or there is concern about lack of progress. I personally believe that it is important to keep all action items in front of use because it is very easy to forget about some and let them slide unnecessarily. - seeing multiple motions on the same issue - surely the job of an efficient chair is to resolve these issues before a call, and present one motion to Council that has a good chance of success? CG: Not sure this is necessarily the Chair's job although I think it is fine if the Chair does it. I believe that any Council member should be able to propose motions that might have a good chance of success and I think that you also support that. But it may not always be possible to get enough sense of the full Council's views to be able to draft a motion with high chances of success so I think there needs to be some flexibility here. - voting on motions that fail - again more background work is needed CG: Not sure I know what you mean here? How do we know whether a motion fails if we do not vote? - voting on procedural motions - eg the time line for the WHOIS study - in the past this would have been proposed by the Chair on list and acted upon unless there was opposition - CG: Avri did this as I recall in the last meeting and I also support it whenever possible and as often as possible. - confusing Council with multiple duplicate mailings before a call - in the past this coordination was done off list between the chair and secretariat, and then one clear mail sent to the list by the secretariat with all proposed motions in full text. - use of non ICANN work spaces like Google - what is the value of this above a list e-mail ( I cannot edit it on Google) ? CG: I have actually found the use of Google docs to be helpful although I must confess I am still learning to use the tool. - discussion on admin matters such as establishing a new group to discuss an issue - surely this is best done on list ? CG: Maybe I am missing your point here, but it seems to me that deciding to form a new group is an acceptable outcome in a meeting and is consistent with your goal to make meetings for efficient. If that can be done on the list before the meeting, fine. But sometimes that may be the result of Council discussion in a meeting. In short, more focus on output than process, more focus on policy than admin and consequently calls every 30 days would be welcome. Philip
Just a couple brief comments: I guess experiences differ because I have found the council's Google Docs page for motions to be extremely helpful. Instead of digging through many emails to find the right text, now there is one page I can always go to for the most current version of the motions. I also agree that we should vote some motions down when warranted. If we approved every motion to start a new PDP, then we'd have to schedule weekly calls to get all of our work done. Robin On Jan 3, 2008, at 7:28 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Thanks for the observations Philip. I strongly support your intent to make our meetings more efficient and have added my comments to your observations below.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 3:35 AM To: 'Council GNSO' Subject: [council] Council work
Avri, fellow Council members
I am becoming increasingly concerned about the bureaucratisation of Council work. We seem to have slipped into Council meetings every 14 days whereas since Council's inception under Bruce and previous chairman, we always managed calls every month. Do we have a significantly increased workload now than before ? No Are we producing more output and more implemented policy than before ? No.
Instead I fear we are wasting time on calls with work that should be done on the list and adding unnecessary duplication. Examples: - talking through the agenda at the start of the call - surely we can all read ?
CG: I think your point is well taken and that a brief opportunity for members to suggest any changes in the agenda would suffice. I would add the following suggestion to yours: instead of requiring in-meeting approval of the minutes we could establish a procedure that allows for automatic approval of the minutes if there are no edits suggested within a certain period of time after they are distributed to the list.
- talking through the work plan at the end of each call - surely this admin item is best left as a web page ?
CG: We really do not spend much time on this item but we could probably handle it more quickly by restricting our discussion to any items where there is new information to share or there is concern about lack of progress. I personally believe that it is important to keep all action items in front of use because it is very easy to forget about some and let them slide unnecessarily.
- seeing multiple motions on the same issue - surely the job of an efficient chair is to resolve these issues before a call, and present one motion to Council that has a good chance of success?
CG: Not sure this is necessarily the Chair's job although I think it is fine if the Chair does it. I believe that any Council member should be able to propose motions that might have a good chance of success and I think that you also support that. But it may not always be possible to get enough sense of the full Council's views to be able to draft a motion with high chances of success so I think there needs to be some flexibility here.
- voting on motions that fail - again more background work is needed
CG: Not sure I know what you mean here? How do we know whether a motion fails if we do not vote?
- voting on procedural motions - eg the time line for the WHOIS study - in the past this would have been proposed by the Chair on list and acted upon unless there was opposition -
CG: Avri did this as I recall in the last meeting and I also support it whenever possible and as often as possible.
- confusing Council with multiple duplicate mailings before a call - in the past this coordination was done off list between the chair and secretariat, and then one clear mail sent to the list by the secretariat with all proposed motions in full text. - use of non ICANN work spaces like Google - what is the value of this above a list e-mail ( I cannot edit it on Google) ?
CG: I have actually found the use of Google docs to be helpful although I must confess I am still learning to use the tool.
- discussion on admin matters such as establishing a new group to discuss an issue - surely this is best done on list ?
CG: Maybe I am missing your point here, but it seems to me that deciding to form a new group is an acceptable outcome in a meeting and is consistent with your goal to make meetings for efficient. If that can be done on the list before the meeting, fine. But sometimes that may be the result of Council discussion in a meeting.
In short, more focus on output than process, more focus on policy than admin and consequently calls every 30 days would be welcome.
Philip
IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin@ipjustice.org
participants (8)
-
Avri Doria -
Bruce Tonkin -
Gomes, Chuck -
Philip Sheppard -
philip.sheppard＠aim.be
-
Robin Gross -
Steve Conte -
Thomas Keller