I've 2 questions to both candidates: 1. I'd appreciate a statement from regarding action item 1. from our last call (prioritization, see attached). Which specific efforts do you have in mind in order to strengthen the council's ability and effectiveness in organizing its work? 2. With respect to the fact that the board recently took decision on VI without having received a specific council recommendation: which measures do you have in mind to avoid the council's position in the policy development process becoming more and more weakened? Thanks and regards Wolf-Ulrich _____ Please note the following action items from our Council meeting one week ago: 1. Assuming we dispense with the prioritization effort, Councilors are encouraged to communicate ideas on the Council mailing list on how to make decisions regarding whether or not to proceed on a project; the aim would be to compile a list of factors that can be used to make choices, and over time develop criteria for choosing projects and work items.
Thanks Wolf for submitting these questions in advance. Olga/Stéphane - I encourage you to respond to the questions on this list in advance of the Council meeting if possible. Chuck From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of KnobenW@telekom.de Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2010 3:06 AM To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] Questions for chair I've 2 questions to both candidates: 1. I'd appreciate a statement from regarding action item 1. from our last call (prioritization, see attached). Which specific efforts do you have in mind in order to strengthen the council's ability and effectiveness in organizing its work? 2. With respect to the fact that the board recently took decision on VI without having received a specific council recommendation: which measures do you have in mind to avoid the council's position in the policy development process becoming more and more weakened? Thanks and regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Please note the following action items from our Council meeting one week ago: 1. Assuming we dispense with the prioritization effort, Councilors are encouraged to communicate ideas on the Council mailing list on how to make decisions regarding whether or not to proceed on a project; the aim would be to compile a list of factors that can be used to make choices, and over time develop criteria for choosing projects and work items.
And mine? Sent from my iPhone On 16/11/2010, at 23:56, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> wrote: Thanks Wolf for submitting these questions in advance. Olga/Stéphane – I encourage you to respond to the questions on this list in advance of the Council meeting if possible. Chuck From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of KnobenW@telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de> Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2010 3:06 AM To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] Questions for chair I've 2 questions to both candidates: 1. I'd appreciate a statement from regarding action item 1. from our last call (prioritization, see attached). Which specific efforts do you have in mind in order to strengthen the council's ability and effectiveness in organizing its work? 2. With respect to the fact that the board recently took decision on VI without having received a specific council recommendation: which measures do you have in mind to avoid the council's position in the policy development process becoming more and more weakened? Thanks and regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Please note the following action items from our Council meeting one week ago: 1. Assuming we dispense with the prioritization effort, Councilors are encouraged to communicate ideas on the Council mailing list on how to make decisions regarding whether or not to proceed on a project; the aim would be to compile a list of factors that can be used to make choices, and over time develop criteria for choosing projects and work items.
Adrian, Wolf, I will send answers later today. Regards Olga Enviado desde mi BlackBerry de Movistar (http://www.movistar.com.ar) -----Original Message----- From: Adrian Kinderis <adrian@ausregistry.com.au> Sender: owner-council@gnso.icann.org Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 05:47:35 To: Gomes, Chuck<cgomes@verisign.com> Cc: KnobenW@telekom.de<KnobenW@telekom.de>; council@gnso.icann.org<council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Questions for chair And mine? Sent from my iPhone On 16/11/2010, at 23:56, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> wrote: Thanks Wolf for submitting these questions in advance. Olga/Stéphane – I encourage you to respond to the questions on this list in advance of the Council meeting if possible. Chuck From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of KnobenW@telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de> Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2010 3:06 AM To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] Questions for chair I've 2 questions to both candidates: 1. I'd appreciate a statement from regarding action item 1. from our last call (prioritization, see attached). Which specific efforts do you have in mind in order to strengthen the council's ability and effectiveness in organizing its work? 2. With respect to the fact that the board recently took decision on VI without having received a specific council recommendation: which measures do you have in mind to avoid the council's position in the policy development process becoming more and more weakened? Thanks and regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Please note the following action items from our Council meeting one week ago: 1. Assuming we dispense with the prioritization effort, Councilors are encouraged to communicate ideas on the Council mailing list on how to make decisions regarding whether or not to proceed on a project; the aim would be to compile a list of factors that can be used to make choices, and over time develop criteria for choosing projects and work items.
Thanks for some great questions Wolf. I look forward to answering them "live" during the slot that has been set aside for this during our meeting this Thursday. Stéphane Le 16 nov. 2010 à 09:06, <KnobenW@telekom.de> <KnobenW@telekom.de> a écrit :
I've 2 questions to both candidates:
I'd appreciate a statement from regarding action item 1. from our last call (prioritization, see attached). Which specific efforts do you have in mind in order to strengthen the council's ability and effectiveness in organizing its work? With respect to the fact that the board recently took decision on VI without having received a specific council recommendation: which measures do you have in mind to avoid the council's position in the policy development process becoming more and more weakened? Thanks and regards Wolf-Ulrich
Please note the following action items from our Council meeting one week ago:
1. Assuming we dispense with the prioritization effort, Councilors are encouraged to communicate ideas on the Council mailing list on how to make decisions regarding whether or not to proceed on a project; the aim would be to compile a list of factors that can be used to make choices, and over time develop criteria for choosing projects and work items.
Hi, in relation with the questions sent by Adrian and Wolf, these are some comments and I am happy to further explain these ideas during the conference call next Friday. Adrian, my mission as a NonCom Appointee is to participate in GNSO with a neutral perspective placing the broad public interest ahead of any particular interests. In my view, a chair is a facilitator and a coordinator of the work of the GNSO, including all different interests and perspectives of all the council members and their stakeholder groups as well. As you may recall, we NCAs could be also non voting members of the GNSO, which is the case of Andrei now. So there could be even a non voting chair. I have shared working teams, drafting teams and several other activities in my three years serving the GNSO with almos all of the council members and dialogue has been always open, so I am happy to answer any other question or doubt you may have. I would apprecialte if you could clarify the concept "platform" included in your question. Wolf, for me the key issue in the future of GNSO is broaden its perspective through outreach. In the Constituency Operations Working Team that I have chaired as part of the GNSO restructuring process, we have produced a very interesting document about outreach that is now under final revision by the OSC and will soon will be available for GNSO revision. (Special thanks to Debbie Hughes that chaired the subworking team, Krista Papac, Claudio DiGangi, Rafik Dammak, Tony Harris and Michael Young for their active participation in drafting the document). If GNSO could broaden participation including a more diverse perspective and more active participation from a wider universe, then it would be easier to have more participants from different stakeholder groups into different projects. As we learned in the prioritization working group, where you were a very active member, all projects have their impact and are relevant and interesting for different councilors and for their stakeholdergroups. So if more representatives can actively participate in different activities then prioritization could be more a managerial issue than a problem of administrating lack of time and resources. In relation with your question on how to "avoid the council's position in the policy development process becoming more and more weakened?", again I think that the answer is having a GNSO with a broader perspective, and this could be achieved through an outreach effort. I will be happy to explain this further or answer other questions next Thrusday. Best regards Olga 2010/11/16 <KnobenW@telekom.de>
I've 2 questions to both candidates:
1. I'd appreciate a statement from regarding action item 1. from our last call (prioritization, see attached). Which specific efforts do you have in mind in order to strengthen the council's ability and effectiveness in organizing its work? 2. With respect to the fact that the board recently took decision on VI without having received a specific council recommendation: which measures do you have in mind to avoid the council's position in the policy development process becoming more and more weakened?
Thanks and regards Wolf-Ulrich
------------------------------
Please note the following action items from our Council meeting one week ago:
1. Assuming we dispense with the prioritization effort, Councilors are encouraged to communicate ideas on the Council mailing list on how to make decisions regarding whether or not to proceed on a project; the aim would be to compile a list of factors that can be used to make choices, and over time develop criteria for choosing projects and work items.
Thanks for responding Olga. Chuck From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Olga Cavalli Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2010 4:59 PM To: KnobenW@telekom.de; Adrian Kinderis Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Questions for chair Hi, in relation with the questions sent by Adrian and Wolf, these are some comments and I am happy to further explain these ideas during the conference call next Friday. Adrian, my mission as a NonCom Appointee is to participate in GNSO with a neutral perspective placing the broad public interest ahead of any particular interests. In my view, a chair is a facilitator and a coordinator of the work of the GNSO, including all different interests and perspectives of all the council members and their stakeholder groups as well. As you may recall, we NCAs could be also non voting members of the GNSO, which is the case of Andrei now. So there could be even a non voting chair. I have shared working teams, drafting teams and several other activities in my three years serving the GNSO with almos all of the council members and dialogue has been always open, so I am happy to answer any other question or doubt you may have. I would apprecialte if you could clarify the concept "platform" included in your question. Wolf, for me the key issue in the future of GNSO is broaden its perspective through outreach. In the Constituency Operations Working Team that I have chaired as part of the GNSO restructuring process, we have produced a very interesting document about outreach that is now under final revision by the OSC and will soon will be available for GNSO revision. (Special thanks to Debbie Hughes that chaired the subworking team, Krista Papac, Claudio DiGangi, Rafik Dammak, Tony Harris and Michael Young for their active participation in drafting the document). If GNSO could broaden participation including a more diverse perspective and more active participation from a wider universe, then it would be easier to have more participants from different stakeholder groups into different projects. As we learned in the prioritization working group, where you were a very active member, all projects have their impact and are relevant and interesting for different councilors and for their stakeholdergroups. So if more representatives can actively participate in different activities then prioritization could be more a managerial issue than a problem of administrating lack of time and resources. In relation with your question on how to "avoid the council's position in the policy development process becoming more and more weakened?", again I think that the answer is having a GNSO with a broader perspective, and this could be achieved through an outreach effort. I will be happy to explain this further or answer other questions next Thrusday. Best regards Olga 2010/11/16 <KnobenW@telekom.de> I've 2 questions to both candidates: 1. I'd appreciate a statement from regarding action item 1. from our last call (prioritization, see attached). Which specific efforts do you have in mind in order to strengthen the council's ability and effectiveness in organizing its work? 2. With respect to the fact that the board recently took decision on VI without having received a specific council recommendation: which measures do you have in mind to avoid the council's position in the policy development process becoming more and more weakened? Thanks and regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Please note the following action items from our Council meeting one week ago: 1. Assuming we dispense with the prioritization effort, Councilors are encouraged to communicate ideas on the Council mailing list on how to make decisions regarding whether or not to proceed on a project; the aim would be to compile a list of factors that can be used to make choices, and over time develop criteria for choosing projects and work items.
Thanks Olga! I think this is also a valuable input for the Cartagena discussion on council role. Regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: Olga Cavalli [mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com] Gesendet: Dienstag, 16. November 2010 22:59 An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; Adrian Kinderis Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Betreff: Re: [council] Questions for chair Hi, in relation with the questions sent by Adrian and Wolf, these are some comments and I am happy to further explain these ideas during the conference call next Friday. Adrian, my mission as a NonCom Appointee is to participate in GNSO with a neutral perspective placing the broad public interest ahead of any particular interests. In my view, a chair is a facilitator and a coordinator of the work of the GNSO, including all different interests and perspectives of all the council members and their stakeholder groups as well. As you may recall, we NCAs could be also non voting members of the GNSO, which is the case of Andrei now. So there could be even a non voting chair. I have shared working teams, drafting teams and several other activities in my three years serving the GNSO with almos all of the council members and dialogue has been always open, so I am happy to answer any other question or doubt you may have. I would apprecialte if you could clarify the concept "platform" included in your question. Wolf, for me the key issue in the future of GNSO is broaden its perspective through outreach. In the Constituency Operations Working Team that I have chaired as part of the GNSO restructuring process, we have produced a very interesting document about outreach that is now under final revision by the OSC and will soon will be available for GNSO revision. (Special thanks to Debbie Hughes that chaired the subworking team, Krista Papac, Claudio DiGangi, Rafik Dammak, Tony Harris and Michael Young for their active participation in drafting the document). If GNSO could broaden participation including a more diverse perspective and more active participation from a wider universe, then it would be easier to have more participants from different stakeholder groups into different projects. As we learned in the prioritization working group, where you were a very active member, all projects have their impact and are relevant and interesting for different councilors and for their stakeholdergroups. So if more representatives can actively participate in different activities then prioritization could be more a managerial issue than a problem of administrating lack of time and resources. In relation with your question on how to "avoid the council's position in the policy development process becoming more and more weakened?", again I think that the answer is having a GNSO with a broader perspective, and this could be achieved through an outreach effort. I will be happy to explain this further or answer other questions next Thrusday. Best regards Olga 2010/11/16 <KnobenW@telekom.de> I've 2 questions to both candidates: 1. I'd appreciate a statement from regarding action item 1. from our last call (prioritization, see attached). Which specific efforts do you have in mind in order to strengthen the council's ability and effectiveness in organizing its work? 2. With respect to the fact that the board recently took decision on VI without having received a specific council recommendation: which measures do you have in mind to avoid the council's position in the policy development process becoming more and more weakened? Thanks and regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Please note the following action items from our Council meeting one week ago: 1. Assuming we dispense with the prioritization effort, Councilors are encouraged to communicate ideas on the Council mailing list on how to make decisions regarding whether or not to proceed on a project; the aim would be to compile a list of factors that can be used to make choices, and over time develop criteria for choosing projects and work items.
Thanks for the response Olga, although I think you missed my question. Perhaps I'll ask it a different way; Do you plan on meeting with other Stakeholder groups to discuss your view and ideas on Council Leadership and if so when? I am a little surprised that you should have to be asked quite frankly. I would have thought it was something that you would have sought out. Perhaps you can explain why you haven't? Thanks for your time. I know you are busy! Adrian Kinderis From: KnobenW@telekom.de [mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de] Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2010 7:34 PM To: olgacavalli@gmail.com; Adrian Kinderis Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: AW: [council] Questions for chair Thanks Olga! I think this is also a valuable input for the Cartagena discussion on council role. Regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: Olga Cavalli [mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com] Gesendet: Dienstag, 16. November 2010 22:59 An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; Adrian Kinderis Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Betreff: Re: [council] Questions for chair Hi, in relation with the questions sent by Adrian and Wolf, these are some comments and I am happy to further explain these ideas during the conference call next Friday. Adrian, my mission as a NonCom Appointee is to participate in GNSO with a neutral perspective placing the broad public interest ahead of any particular interests. In my view, a chair is a facilitator and a coordinator of the work of the GNSO, including all different interests and perspectives of all the council members and their stakeholder groups as well. As you may recall, we NCAs could be also non voting members of the GNSO, which is the case of Andrei now. So there could be even a non voting chair. I have shared working teams, drafting teams and several other activities in my three years serving the GNSO with almos all of the council members and dialogue has been always open, so I am happy to answer any other question or doubt you may have. I would apprecialte if you could clarify the concept "platform" included in your question. Wolf, for me the key issue in the future of GNSO is broaden its perspective through outreach. In the Constituency Operations Working Team that I have chaired as part of the GNSO restructuring process, we have produced a very interesting document about outreach that is now under final revision by the OSC and will soon will be available for GNSO revision. (Special thanks to Debbie Hughes that chaired the subworking team, Krista Papac, Claudio DiGangi, Rafik Dammak, Tony Harris and Michael Young for their active participation in drafting the document). If GNSO could broaden participation including a more diverse perspective and more active participation from a wider universe, then it would be easier to have more participants from different stakeholder groups into different projects. As we learned in the prioritization working group, where you were a very active member, all projects have their impact and are relevant and interesting for different councilors and for their stakeholdergroups. So if more representatives can actively participate in different activities then prioritization could be more a managerial issue than a problem of administrating lack of time and resources. In relation with your question on how to "avoid the council's position in the policy development process becoming more and more weakened?", again I think that the answer is having a GNSO with a broader perspective, and this could be achieved through an outreach effort. I will be happy to explain this further or answer other questions next Thrusday. Best regards Olga 2010/11/16 <KnobenW@telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de>> I've 2 questions to both candidates: 1. I'd appreciate a statement from regarding action item 1. from our last call (prioritization, see attached). Which specific efforts do you have in mind in order to strengthen the council's ability and effectiveness in organizing its work? 2. With respect to the fact that the board recently took decision on VI without having received a specific council recommendation: which measures do you have in mind to avoid the council's position in the policy development process becoming more and more weakened? Thanks and regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Please note the following action items from our Council meeting one week ago: 1. Assuming we dispense with the prioritization effort, Councilors are encouraged to communicate ideas on the Council mailing list on how to make decisions regarding whether or not to proceed on a project; the aim would be to compile a list of factors that can be used to make choices, and over time develop criteria for choosing projects and work items.
Adrian, I am happy to discuss any ideas or views with all the stakeholders, no problem with that so feel free to ask me. The GNSO council list is useful as all the councilors have the chance to see the exchange of messages. Next conference call is another possible moment, or you can reach me by email or by phone if necessary. We are all busy as we all have our own activities, but since I was appointed to the GNSO three years ago I have devoted an important part of my time to my volunteer work in the council, as you can see it described in all the working groups and other activities I have been involved in. I would appreciate if you could clarify the concept "platform" included in your first message with questions to me. Best regards Olga 2010/11/17 Adrian Kinderis <adrian@ausregistry.com.au>
Thanks for the response Olga, although I think you missed my question.
Perhaps I’ll ask it a different way;
Do you plan on meeting with other Stakeholder groups to discuss your view and ideas on Council Leadership and if so when? I am a little surprised that you should have to be asked quite frankly. I would have thought it was something that you would have sought out. Perhaps you can explain why you haven’t?
Thanks for your time.
I know you are busy!
*Adrian Kinderis*
*From:* KnobenW@telekom.de [mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de] *Sent:* Wednesday, November 17, 2010 7:34 PM *To:* olgacavalli@gmail.com; Adrian Kinderis
*Cc:* council@gnso.icann.org *Subject:* AW: [council] Questions for chair
Thanks Olga! I think this is also a valuable input for the Cartagena discussion on council role.
Regards
Wolf-Ulrich
------------------------------
*Von:* Olga Cavalli [mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com] *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 16. November 2010 22:59 *An:* Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; Adrian Kinderis *Cc:* council@gnso.icann.org *Betreff:* Re: [council] Questions for chair
Hi, in relation with the questions sent by Adrian and Wolf, these are some comments and I am happy to further explain these ideas during the conference call next Friday.
Adrian, my mission as a NonCom Appointee is to participate in GNSO with a neutral perspective placing the broad public interest ahead of any particular interests. In my view, a chair is a facilitator and a coordinator of the work of the GNSO, including all different interests and perspectives of all the council members and their stakeholder groups as well.
As you may recall, we NCAs could be also non voting members of the GNSO, which is the case of Andrei now. So there could be even a non voting chair.
I have shared working teams, drafting teams and several other activities in my three years serving the GNSO with almos all of the council members and dialogue has been always open, so I am happy to answer any other question or doubt you may have.
I would apprecialte if you could clarify the concept "platform" included in your question.
Wolf, for me the key issue in the future of GNSO is broaden its perspective through outreach.
In the Constituency Operations Working Team that I have chaired as part of the GNSO restructuring process, we have produced a very interesting document about outreach that is now under final revision by the OSC and will soon will be available for GNSO revision. (Special thanks to Debbie Hughes that chaired the subworking team, Krista Papac, Claudio DiGangi, Rafik Dammak, Tony Harris and Michael Young for their active participation in drafting the document).
If GNSO could broaden participation including a more diverse perspective and more active participation from a wider universe, then it would be easier to have more participants from different stakeholder groups into different projects.
As we learned in the prioritization working group, where you were a very active member, all projects have their impact and are relevant and interesting for different councilors and for their stakeholdergroups. So if more representatives can actively participate in different activities then prioritization could be more a managerial issue than a problem of administrating lack of time and resources.
In relation with your question on how to "avoid the council's position in the policy development process becoming more and more weakened?", again I think that the answer is having a GNSO with a broader perspective, and this could be achieved through an outreach effort.
I will be happy to explain this further or answer other questions next Thrusday.
Best regards
Olga
2010/11/16 <KnobenW@telekom.de>
I've 2 questions to both candidates:
1. I'd appreciate a statement from regarding action item 1. from our last call (prioritization, see attached). Which specific efforts do you have in mind in order to strengthen the council's ability and effectiveness in organizing its work? 2. With respect to the fact that the board recently took decision on VI without having received a specific council recommendation: which measures do you have in mind to avoid the council's position in the policy development process becoming more and more weakened?
Thanks and regards Wolf-Ulrich
------------------------------
Please note the following action items from our Council meeting one week ago:
1. Assuming we dispense with the prioritization effort, Councilors are encouraged to communicate ideas on the Council mailing list on how to make decisions regarding whether or not to proceed on a project; the aim would be to compile a list of factors that can be used to make choices, and over time develop criteria for choosing projects and work items.
So you would like us to pursue you to secure our vote? Ummm..Sure... OK. I am not doubting how busy you are. All Councilors are volunteers and dedicate important parts of our time to work in the Council. I am not sure this is relevant. The term platform in the context that I raised it is best defined by Wikipedia; Party Platform (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_platform) A party platform, also known as a manifesto<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifesto>, is a list of the actions which a political party<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_party> supports in order to appeal to the general public for the purpose of having said party's candidates voted into office. This often takes the form of a list of support for, or opposition to, controversial topics. Individual topics are often called planks of the platform. I trust this helps. Adrian Kinderis From: Olga Cavalli [mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2010 9:55 PM To: Adrian Kinderis Cc: KnobenW@telekom.de; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Questions for chair Adrian, I am happy to discuss any ideas or views with all the stakeholders, no problem with that so feel free to ask me. The GNSO council list is useful as all the councilors have the chance to see the exchange of messages. Next conference call is another possible moment, or you can reach me by email or by phone if necessary. We are all busy as we all have our own activities, but since I was appointed to the GNSO three years ago I have devoted an important part of my time to my volunteer work in the council, as you can see it described in all the working groups and other activities I have been involved in. I would appreciate if you could clarify the concept "platform" included in your first message with questions to me. Best regards Olga 2010/11/17 Adrian Kinderis <adrian@ausregistry.com.au<mailto:adrian@ausregistry.com.au>> Thanks for the response Olga, although I think you missed my question. Perhaps I'll ask it a different way; Do you plan on meeting with other Stakeholder groups to discuss your view and ideas on Council Leadership and if so when? I am a little surprised that you should have to be asked quite frankly. I would have thought it was something that you would have sought out. Perhaps you can explain why you haven't? Thanks for your time. I know you are busy! Adrian Kinderis From: KnobenW@telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de> [mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de>] Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2010 7:34 PM To: olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com>; Adrian Kinderis Cc: council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: AW: [council] Questions for chair Thanks Olga! I think this is also a valuable input for the Cartagena discussion on council role. Regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: Olga Cavalli [mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com>] Gesendet: Dienstag, 16. November 2010 22:59 An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; Adrian Kinderis Cc: council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Betreff: Re: [council] Questions for chair Hi, in relation with the questions sent by Adrian and Wolf, these are some comments and I am happy to further explain these ideas during the conference call next Friday. Adrian, my mission as a NonCom Appointee is to participate in GNSO with a neutral perspective placing the broad public interest ahead of any particular interests. In my view, a chair is a facilitator and a coordinator of the work of the GNSO, including all different interests and perspectives of all the council members and their stakeholder groups as well. As you may recall, we NCAs could be also non voting members of the GNSO, which is the case of Andrei now. So there could be even a non voting chair. I have shared working teams, drafting teams and several other activities in my three years serving the GNSO with almos all of the council members and dialogue has been always open, so I am happy to answer any other question or doubt you may have. I would apprecialte if you could clarify the concept "platform" included in your question. Wolf, for me the key issue in the future of GNSO is broaden its perspective through outreach. In the Constituency Operations Working Team that I have chaired as part of the GNSO restructuring process, we have produced a very interesting document about outreach that is now under final revision by the OSC and will soon will be available for GNSO revision. (Special thanks to Debbie Hughes that chaired the subworking team, Krista Papac, Claudio DiGangi, Rafik Dammak, Tony Harris and Michael Young for their active participation in drafting the document). If GNSO could broaden participation including a more diverse perspective and more active participation from a wider universe, then it would be easier to have more participants from different stakeholder groups into different projects. As we learned in the prioritization working group, where you were a very active member, all projects have their impact and are relevant and interesting for different councilors and for their stakeholdergroups. So if more representatives can actively participate in different activities then prioritization could be more a managerial issue than a problem of administrating lack of time and resources. In relation with your question on how to "avoid the council's position in the policy development process becoming more and more weakened?", again I think that the answer is having a GNSO with a broader perspective, and this could be achieved through an outreach effort. I will be happy to explain this further or answer other questions next Thrusday. Best regards Olga 2010/11/16 <KnobenW@telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de>> I've 2 questions to both candidates: 1. I'd appreciate a statement from regarding action item 1. from our last call (prioritization, see attached). Which specific efforts do you have in mind in order to strengthen the council's ability and effectiveness in organizing its work? 2. With respect to the fact that the board recently took decision on VI without having received a specific council recommendation: which measures do you have in mind to avoid the council's position in the policy development process becoming more and more weakened? Thanks and regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Please note the following action items from our Council meeting one week ago: 1. Assuming we dispense with the prioritization effort, Councilors are encouraged to communicate ideas on the Council mailing list on how to make decisions regarding whether or not to proceed on a project; the aim would be to compile a list of factors that can be used to make choices, and over time develop criteria for choosing projects and work items.
Adrian, if having a "platform" means that I should have a "list of support for, or opposition to, controversial topics", then I do not have such a list. In my view, as I said in my first reply to your question, the chair must facilitate and help the council work and dynamics and should not be biased towards "supporting or opposing controversial topics". I consider all GNSO topics and projects as important. Regards Olga 2010/11/17 Adrian Kinderis <adrian@ausregistry.com.au>
So you would like us to pursue you to secure our vote? Ummm..Sure… OK.
I am not doubting how busy you are. All Councilors are volunteers and dedicate important parts of our time to work in the Council. I am not sure this is relevant.
The term platform in the context that I raised it is best defined by Wikipedia;
Party Platform (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_platform)
A *party platform*, also known as a manifesto<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifesto>, is a list of the actions which a political party<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_party> supports in order to appeal to the general public for the purpose of having said party's candidates voted into office. This often takes the form of a list of support for, or opposition to, controversial topics. Individual topics are often called planks of the platform.
I trust this helps.
*Adrian Kinderis*
*From:* Olga Cavalli [mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com] *Sent:* Wednesday, November 17, 2010 9:55 PM *To:* Adrian Kinderis *Cc:* KnobenW@telekom.de; council@gnso.icann.org *Subject:* Re: [council] Questions for chair
Adrian, I am happy to discuss any ideas or views with all the stakeholders, no problem with that so feel free to ask me. The GNSO council list is useful as all the councilors have the chance to see the exchange of messages. Next conference call is another possible moment, or you can reach me by email or by phone if necessary. We are all busy as we all have our own activities, but since I was appointed to the GNSO three years ago I have devoted an important part of my time to my volunteer work in the council, as you can see it described in all the working groups and other activities I have been involved in. I would appreciate if you could clarify the concept "platform" included in your first message with questions to me. Best regards Olga
2010/11/17 Adrian Kinderis <adrian@ausregistry.com.au>
Thanks for the response Olga, although I think you missed my question.
Perhaps I’ll ask it a different way;
Do you plan on meeting with other Stakeholder groups to discuss your view and ideas on Council Leadership and if so when? I am a little surprised that you should have to be asked quite frankly. I would have thought it was something that you would have sought out. Perhaps you can explain why you haven’t?
Thanks for your time.
I know you are busy!
*Adrian Kinderis*
*From:* KnobenW@telekom.de [mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de] *Sent:* Wednesday, November 17, 2010 7:34 PM *To:* olgacavalli@gmail.com; Adrian Kinderis
*Cc:* council@gnso.icann.org
*Subject:* AW: [council] Questions for chair
Thanks Olga! I think this is also a valuable input for the Cartagena discussion on council role.
Regards
Wolf-Ulrich
------------------------------
*Von:* Olga Cavalli [mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com] *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 16. November 2010 22:59 *An:* Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; Adrian Kinderis *Cc:* council@gnso.icann.org *Betreff:* Re: [council] Questions for chair
Hi, in relation with the questions sent by Adrian and Wolf, these are some comments and I am happy to further explain these ideas during the conference call next Friday.
Adrian, my mission as a NonCom Appointee is to participate in GNSO with a neutral perspective placing the broad public interest ahead of any particular interests. In my view, a chair is a facilitator and a coordinator of the work of the GNSO, including all different interests and perspectives of all the council members and their stakeholder groups as well.
As you may recall, we NCAs could be also non voting members of the GNSO, which is the case of Andrei now. So there could be even a non voting chair.
I have shared working teams, drafting teams and several other activities in my three years serving the GNSO with almos all of the council members and dialogue has been always open, so I am happy to answer any other question or doubt you may have.
I would apprecialte if you could clarify the concept "platform" included in your question.
Wolf, for me the key issue in the future of GNSO is broaden its perspective through outreach.
In the Constituency Operations Working Team that I have chaired as part of the GNSO restructuring process, we have produced a very interesting document about outreach that is now under final revision by the OSC and will soon will be available for GNSO revision. (Special thanks to Debbie Hughes that chaired the subworking team, Krista Papac, Claudio DiGangi, Rafik Dammak, Tony Harris and Michael Young for their active participation in drafting the document).
If GNSO could broaden participation including a more diverse perspective and more active participation from a wider universe, then it would be easier to have more participants from different stakeholder groups into different projects.
As we learned in the prioritization working group, where you were a very active member, all projects have their impact and are relevant and interesting for different councilors and for their stakeholdergroups. So if more representatives can actively participate in different activities then prioritization could be more a managerial issue than a problem of administrating lack of time and resources.
In relation with your question on how to "avoid the council's position in the policy development process becoming more and more weakened?", again I think that the answer is having a GNSO with a broader perspective, and this could be achieved through an outreach effort.
I will be happy to explain this further or answer other questions next Thrusday.
Best regards
Olga
2010/11/16 <KnobenW@telekom.de>
I've 2 questions to both candidates:
1. I'd appreciate a statement from regarding action item 1. from our last call (prioritization, see attached). Which specific efforts do you have in mind in order to strengthen the council's ability and effectiveness in organizing its work? 2. With respect to the fact that the board recently took decision on VI without having received a specific council recommendation: which measures do you have in mind to avoid the council's position in the policy development process becoming more and more weakened?
Thanks and regards Wolf-Ulrich
------------------------------
Please note the following action items from our Council meeting one week ago:
1. Assuming we dispense with the prioritization effort, Councilors are encouraged to communicate ideas on the Council mailing list on how to make decisions regarding whether or not to proceed on a project; the aim would be to compile a list of factors that can be used to make choices, and over time develop criteria for choosing projects and work items.
Wolf, If I may, let me give you a short answer by email and augment that answer during our call tomorrow, as planned. I think prioritization must be at the center of the next Chair's actions. We are all stretched very thin at the moment and that is having an adverse impact on our work and the Council's effectiveness. Staff are at their limit. But what I am more worried about is volunteer burnout: WE are at our limit. The current DOI situation is a (small) example of what happens when we no longer have the time to look at the documents we are asked to ratify in detail. We miss something. In this case, it's a relatively easy fix (still it means having to go back to the OSC and the GCOT, doing a motion, etc.). Not so if we're dealing with a major policy development item... I do not think that the prioritization work that was undertaken a year ago should be given up. But after a year, we really should have had a solution by now. Any such initiative needs leadership to see it through. It's just not good enough to let us waddle through several months of work and get to an end result that no-one is happy with. If I am elected, prioritization will be a top issue for me because it is the key to making everything else work. I think the solution can be in part model based, as long as we don't let the model get too complex. But I also think it can be part organizational. What I mean by that is the Council Leaders must be up to the task of suggesting ways forward to the Council. Of course, it is then up to the Council to accept those suggestions or not. But absent leadership that is able to make these suggestions, we risk chasing our tails for a long time to come. So that leadership team needs a dedicated Chair but also two equally dedicated Vice Chairs. There's just too much to do for the full leadership team not to be up to par. On VI, I would argue that the Council was not weakened by the decision. The Board may have been weakened by it... But on our end, the PDP happened by the book. But let's be honest, the Board was left with little choice but to either let further delays build in the new gTLD program, or to take a top-down decision. The question I think we have to ask ourselves is: how did we, as the initiators of the process, put the Board in this position? Once again, I think in part it comes down to prioritization. When an issues report on this was requested, the Council was doing what it should. However, we then decided not to follow the recommendations that came out of that issues report. That's our prerogative but I think that no matter how we felt about the issue itself, if we'd had an effective prioritization system in place then, we might have looked twice at what it meant to launch the largest working group in recent ICANN history on a 6-month ride towards no result... So as you can see, prioritization really is a key point for me. If we get it wrong, or if we don't elect 3 Council Leaders that are dedicated to goals that remain realistic as far as volunteer, staff and budget resources are concerned, that's how we weaken the Council. And that's me trying to give you a "short" answer Wolf... ;) Stéphane Le 16 nov. 2010 à 09:06, <KnobenW@telekom.de> <KnobenW@telekom.de> a écrit :
I've 2 questions to both candidates:
I'd appreciate a statement from regarding action item 1. from our last call (prioritization, see attached). Which specific efforts do you have in mind in order to strengthen the council's ability and effectiveness in organizing its work? With respect to the fact that the board recently took decision on VI without having received a specific council recommendation: which measures do you have in mind to avoid the council's position in the policy development process becoming more and more weakened? Thanks and regards Wolf-Ulrich
Please note the following action items from our Council meeting one week ago:
1. Assuming we dispense with the prioritization effort, Councilors are encouraged to communicate ideas on the Council mailing list on how to make decisions regarding whether or not to proceed on a project; the aim would be to compile a list of factors that can be used to make choices, and over time develop criteria for choosing projects and work items.
Thanks for your "short" but nonetheless comprehensive answer, Stéphane! I'm looking forward to the discussion tomorrow and the follow-up in Cartagena. Wolf-Ulrich _____ Von: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com] Gesendet: Mittwoch, 17. November 2010 11:16 An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; Council GNSO Betreff: Re: [council] Questions for chair Wolf, If I may, let me give you a short answer by email and augment that answer during our call tomorrow, as planned. I think prioritization must be at the center of the next Chair's actions. We are all stretched very thin at the moment and that is having an adverse impact on our work and the Council's effectiveness. Staff are at their limit. But what I am more worried about is volunteer burnout: WE are at our limit. The current DOI situation is a (small) example of what happens when we no longer have the time to look at the documents we are asked to ratify in detail. We miss something. In this case, it's a relatively easy fix (still it means having to go back to the OSC and the GCOT, doing a motion, etc.). Not so if we're dealing with a major policy development item... I do not think that the prioritization work that was undertaken a year ago should be given up. But after a year, we really should have had a solution by now. Any such initiative needs leadership to see it through. It's just not good enough to let us waddle through several months of work and get to an end result that no-one is happy with. If I am elected, prioritization will be a top issue for me because it is the key to making everything else work. I think the solution can be in part model based, as long as we don't let the model get too complex. But I also think it can be part organizational. What I mean by that is the Council Leaders must be up to the task of suggesting ways forward to the Council. Of course, it is then up to the Council to accept those suggestions or not. But absent leadership that is able to make these suggestions, we risk chasing our tails for a long time to come. So that leadership team needs a dedicated Chair but also two equally dedicated Vice Chairs. There's just too much to do for the full leadership team not to be up to par. On VI, I would argue that the Council was not weakened by the decision. The Board may have been weakened by it... But on our end, the PDP happened by the book. But let's be honest, the Board was left with little choice but to either let further delays build in the new gTLD program, or to take a top-down decision. The question I think we have to ask ourselves is: how did we, as the initiators of the process, put the Board in this position? Once again, I think in part it comes down to prioritization. When an issues report on this was requested, the Council was doing what it should. However, we then decided not to follow the recommendations that came out of that issues report. That's our prerogative but I think that no matter how we felt about the issue itself, if we'd had an effective prioritization system in place then, we might have looked twice at what it meant to launch the largest working group in recent ICANN history on a 6-month ride towards no result... So as you can see, prioritization really is a key point for me. If we get it wrong, or if we don't elect 3 Council Leaders that are dedicated to goals that remain realistic as far as volunteer, staff and budget resources are concerned, that's how we weaken the Council. And that's me trying to give you a "short" answer Wolf... ;) Stéphane Le 16 nov. 2010 à 09:06, <KnobenW@telekom.de> <KnobenW@telekom.de> a écrit : I've 2 questions to both candidates: 1. I'd appreciate a statement from regarding action item 1. from our last call (prioritization, see attached). Which specific efforts do you have in mind in order to strengthen the council's ability and effectiveness in organizing its work? 2. With respect to the fact that the board recently took decision on VI without having received a specific council recommendation: which measures do you have in mind to avoid the council's position in the policy development process becoming more and more weakened? Thanks and regards Wolf-Ulrich _____ Please note the following action items from our Council meeting one week ago: 1. Assuming we dispense with the prioritization effort, Councilors are encouraged to communicate ideas on the Council mailing list on how to make decisions regarding whether or not to proceed on a project; the aim would be to compile a list of factors that can be used to make choices, and over time develop criteria for choosing projects and work items.
participants (5)
-
Adrian Kinderis -
Gomes, Chuck -
KnobenW＠telekom.de -
Olga Cavalli -
Stéphane Van Gelder