Jonathan, The process of electing a member of the board by the non-contracted party's house and the expanding discussion about ICANN accountability led me to review the bylaws and to this: "Article VI, Section 7: Directors shall serve as individuals who have the duty to act in what they reasonably believe are the best interests of ICANN and not as representatives of the entity that selected them, their employers, or any other organizations or constituencies." The bold face is mine. I would like to talk to the Board about how, in light of their role there can be a better counterbalance for the view of the community. Yes, each entity can express its view, but there is not place in ICANN's structure where the view of the community can roll up to serve as a counterbalance to management initiatives aimed at growth and expansion that are, by bylaw, supported by the board. Even if you consider the GNSO Council, the ccNSO Council, the GAC, ALAS and all the other SOs and ACs as significant the portfolio of each is narrower than it is in combination. There is some discussion at the constituency level and experience arising from the proliferation of cross community working groups, but without a permanent voice for the community as a whole, there is a likelihood that the community will continue to find itself trying to catch up. That is what I would like to talk about. Berard --------- Original Message --------- Subject: RE: [council] ICANN 50: GNSO Council Meeting with the ICANN Board From: "Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson@afilias.info> Date: 6/12/14 10:32 am To: "'Reed, Daniel A'" <dan-reed@uiowa.edu>, council@gnso.icann.org Thanks Dan. From: Reed, Daniel A [mailto:dan-reed@uiowa.edu] Sent: 12 June 2014 18:26 To: jrobinson@afilias.info; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] ICANN 50: GNSO Council Meeting with the ICANN Board Transparency on decision processes is what I hear most often with respect to the ICANN board (relates to bypassing processes). From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 7:37 AM To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] ICANN 50: GNSO Council Meeting with the ICANN Board All, Please can you provide input as to the topics your SG and/or Constituency would like to see the Council (bearing in mind the role and function of the Council) raise and discuss with the ICANN board in our meeting in London. A couple of ideas: - An update on key themes of the work of the Council and associated policy work in the GNSO (Keeping this very short) o GNSO / GAC CG o PDP improvements o Other? - Effective and appropriate management of policy work in the ICANN structures. A point related to concerns over bypassing policy processes. Has this improved, got worse or stayed the same? - A N Other Jonathan

It strikes me that there are a number of issues within this that we may want to take up with either or both of the CEO & the board. 1. (As below) The issue of (GNSO) seats on the board arising out of a particular SO or AC and how that is reconciled with the duties and obligations of a director. I agree with Avri that they are not necessarily incompatible but a discussion around the understanding of how this works and expectations and understandings may be helpful. 2. The issue of the (unmanageable?) volume of work and demand on the volunteer structure. The cause and effects of this. 3. Potentially connected to the above but also to a number of other threads. Any other concerns or issues with "the model" i.e. bottom-up, multi-stakeholder processes? Noting that references are increasingly made to terms such as dialogue and consultation which may not be compatible with this. 4. How do groups within the GNSO feel that ICANN is performing the core functions that the SGs and constituencies rely on? How is ICANN serving / servicing the needs of the GNSO? Is it the case that ICANN is growing and developing fast and effectively whilst the broader community is struggling to keep pace or is ICANN also being challenged by the myriad initiatives? I welcome any thoughts on the above as we try to shape a constructive and impactful dialogue with the Board, Fadi, Theresa and the GDD. Jonathan -----Original Message----- From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@acm.org] Sent: 12 June 2014 22:33 To: john@crediblecontext.com; jrobinson@afilias.info; 'Reed, Daniel A'; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] ICANN 50: GNSO Council Meeting with the ICANN Board Hi, My interpretation of that in respect to the interests of the community that was that in electing someone the voters, or perhaps their constituencies if they are not free to vote as they think best for ICANN, could gauge whether the person being considered had a view of the ICANN that was such that what was good for ICANN was very much in harmony with what was good for the GNSO. Yes, their obligation as Board members is to take the whole of ICANN into account, but we elect them because we think that their world view is compatible with our needs. And we reject them when we don't think so. So I could think that while X might be able to do a good enough job and that he would do what he thought best for ICANN, his world view was one that I thought did not support the GNSO and thus I would not give him my vote. I see no incompatibility between the two. avri On 12-Jun-14 22:01, john@crediblecontext.com wrote:

Jonathan,

The process of electing a member of the board by the non-contracted party's house and the expanding discussion about ICANN accountability led me to review the bylaws and to this: "Article VI, Section 7: Directors shall serve as individuals who have the duty to *act in what they reasonably believe are the best interests of ICANN and not as representatives of the entity that selected them*, their employers, or any other organizations or constituencies." The *bold face* is mine.

I would like to talk to the Board about how, in light of their role there can be a better counterbalance for the view of the community. Yes, each entity can express its view, but there is not place in ICANN's structure where the view of the community can roll up to serve as a counterbalance to management initiatives aimed at growth and expansion that are, by bylaw, supported by the board. Even if you consider the GNSO Council, the ccNSO Council, the GAC, ALAS and all the other SOs and ACs as significant the portfolio of each is narrower than it is in combination.

There is some discussion at the constituency level and experience arising from the proliferation of cross community working groups, but without a permanent voice for the community as a whole, there is a likelihood that the community will continue to find itself trying to catch up.

That is what I would like to talk about.

Berard

--------- Original Message --------- Subject: RE: [council] ICANN 50: GNSO Council Meeting with the ICANN Board From: "Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson@afilias.info> Date: 6/12/14 10:32 am To: "'Reed, Daniel A'" <dan-reed@uiowa.edu>, council@gnso.icann.org

Thanks Dan.

*From:*Reed, Daniel A [mailto:dan-reed@uiowa.edu] *Sent:* 12 June 2014 18:26 *To:* jrobinson@afilias.info; council@gnso.icann.org *Subject:* RE: [council] ICANN 50: GNSO Council Meeting with the ICANN Board

Transparency on decision processes is what I hear most often with respect to the ICANN board (relates to bypassing processes).

*From:*owner-council@gnso.icann.org <mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Jonathan Robinson *Sent:* Thursday, June 12, 2014 7:37 AM *To:* council@gnso.icann.org <mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> *Subject:* [council] ICANN 50: GNSO Council Meeting with the ICANN Board

All,

Please can you provide input as to the topics your SG and/or Constituency would like to see the Council (bearing in mind the role and function of the Council) raise and discuss with the ICANN board in our meeting in London.

A couple of ideas:

- An update on key themes of the work of the Council and associated policy work in the GNSO (Keeping this very short)

o GNSO / GAC CG

o PDP improvements

o Other?

- Effective and appropriate management of policy work in the ICANN structures. A point related to concerns over bypassing policy processes. Has this improved, got worse or stayed the same?

- A N Other

Jonathan