DRAFT/early thoughts on what a CEO performance review motion
All, Does this get at the intent? Suggestions are more than welcome as I think we are breaking new ground here. I apologize if the format is not perfect, but if we crowdsource it, I think we can button it up. Cheers, Berard Whereas, Fadi Chehade was announced as the new CEO and President of ICANN at the organization's meeting in Prague in June 2012, and Whereas, in his first presentation to the ICANN community in Prague in June 2012, he noted that “I am driven by building consensus. It is the reason I am here today. There is no other reason. I love doing this. Bringing communities that on the face of it could never be brought together to agree on common things is exactly what I strive to do,” and Whereas, as reported at the time he joined ICANN, “In selecting Chehade, ICANN went with someone who isn't well known and isn't well versed in the organization's core tasks - keeping the Internet address system running smoothly,” and Whereas, in the two years of his term, the landscape of the Internet and role played by ICANN has changed in ways equal only to the origin of the organization, including significant budget and staff increases, and Whereas, in response to the expanded attention to the domain name system and ICANN's role in managing it, Chehade has championed changes in the policy development process, Therefore, beginning on March 26, 2014 with the passage of this motion, and continuing through the next ICANN public meeting in London in June 2014, the community, under the leadership of a review committee comprised of the GNSO's constituency and stakeholder leadership, shall have the opportunity to offer comment on the performance of the CEO.
Dear Berard, Dear All Whereas, I am not necessarily opposed to the motion, I wonder if the GNSO is the right place to move and develop it. As a newcomer to the GNSO Council, I want to be clear if this is inside the pdp remit of the council. Please advice! Yours, Klaus PS: Whereas I move, the motion should be filed under "clever ICANN CEO's assassination attempts".:-) On 2/27/2014 7:43 PM, john@crediblecontext.com wrote:
All,
Does this get at the intent? Suggestions are more than welcome as I think we are breaking new ground here. I apologize if the format is not perfect, but if we crowdsource it, I think we can button it up.
Cheers,
Berard
*Whereas, Fadi Chehade was announced as the new CEO and President of ICANN at the organization’s meeting in Prague in June 2012, and*
*Whereas, in his first presentation to the ICANN community in Prague in June 2012, he noted that “I am driven by building consensus. It is the reason I am here today. There is no other reason. I love doing this. Bringing communities that on the face of it could never be brought together to agree on common things is exactly what I strive to do,” and*
*Whereas, as reported at the time he joined ICANN, “In selecting Chehade, ICANN went with someone who isn't well known and isn't well versed in the organization's core tasks — keeping the Internet address system running smoothly,” and*
*Whereas, in the two years of his term, the landscape of the Internet and role played by ICANN has changed in ways equal only to the origin of the organization, including significant budget and staff increases, and*
*Whereas, in response to the expanded attention to the domain name system and ICANN’s role in managing it, Chehade has championed changes in the policy development process,*
*Therefore, beginning on March 26, 2014 with the passage of this motion, and continuing through the next ICANN public meeting in London in June 2014, the community, under the leadership of a review committee comprised of the GNSO’s constituency and stakeholder leadership, shall have the opportunity to offer comment on the performance of the CEO.*
**
Klaus, As I said, this is new ground and deserves the group's thinking. Consider my efforts merely the provocation. Berard -----Original Message----- From: Klaus Stoll <kdrstoll@gmail.com> To: john <john@crediblecontext.com>; council <council@gnso.icann.org> Sent: Thu, Feb 27, 2014 11:10 am Subject: Re: [council] DRAFT/early thoughts on what a CEO performance review motion Dear Berard, Dear All Whereas, I am not necessarily opposed to the motion, I wonder if the GNSO is the right place to move and develop it. As a newcomer to the GNSO Council, I want to be clear if this is inside the pdp remit of the council. Please advice! Yours, Klaus PS: Whereas I move, the motion should be filed under "clever ICANN CEO's assassination attempts". :-) On 2/27/2014 7:43 PM, john@crediblecontext.com wrote: All, Does this get at the intent? Suggestions are more than welcome as I think we are breaking new ground here. I apologize if the format is not perfect, but if we crowdsource it, I think we can button it up. Cheers, Berard Whereas, Fadi Chehade was announced as the new CEO and President of ICANN at the organization’s meeting in Prague in June 2012, and Whereas, in his first presentation to the ICANN community in Prague in June 2012, he noted that “I am driven by building consensus. It is the reason I am here today. There is no other reason. I love doing this. Bringing communities that on the face of it could never be brought together to agree on common things is exactly what I strive to do,” and Whereas, as reported at the time he joined ICANN, “In selecting Chehade, ICANN went with someone who isn't well known and isn't well versed in the organization's core tasks — keeping the Internet address system running smoothly,” and Whereas, in the two years of his term, the landscape of the Internet and role played by ICANN has changed in ways equal only to the origin of the organization, including significant budget and staff increases, and Whereas, in response to the expanded attention to the domain name system and ICANN’s role in managing it, Chehade has championed changes in the policy development process, Therefore, beginning on March 26, 2014 with the passage of this motion, and continuing through the next ICANN public meeting in London in June 2014, the community, under the leadership of a review committee comprised of the GNSO’s constituency and stakeholder leadership, shall have the opportunity to offer comment on the performance of the CEO.
hi all, sometimes i come up with an idea late at night that sounds killer clever — and then the next morning i look at it in the light of day and realize that if i really want to pull this idea off, it’s going to take a lot more thinking and refinement before it’s ready. immediate reactions: - i’m uncomfortable with the “constituency and stakeholder leadership” phrase — if it’s truly going to be reflective of the bottom-up process, the participation ought to be open, just like a working group is open - if it’s going to be run like a working group, it ought to be chartered like a working group — problem statement, scope, approach, deliverables, all that jazz - if it’s really going to be reflective of the whole community it ought to be a cross-community working group and not contained by the edges of the GNSO as i follow my nose down that chain of logic i find myself stepping back a bit. are we really ready to take this on? are we really the right group? is this really the best way to express our concerns? is this the battle that’s most important to fight right now? mikey On Feb 27, 2014, at 1:20 PM, John Berard <johnberard@aol.com> wrote:
Klaus,
As I said, this is new ground and deserves the group's thinking. Consider my efforts merely the provocation.
Berard
-----Original Message----- From: Klaus Stoll <kdrstoll@gmail.com> To: john <john@crediblecontext.com>; council <council@gnso.icann.org> Sent: Thu, Feb 27, 2014 11:10 am Subject: Re: [council] DRAFT/early thoughts on what a CEO performance review motion
Dear Berard, Dear All
Whereas, I am not necessarily opposed to the motion, I wonder if the GNSO is the right place to move and develop it. As a newcomer to the GNSO Council, I want to be clear if this is inside the pdp remit of the council.
Please advice!
Yours, Klaus
PS: Whereas I move, the motion should be filed under "clever ICANN CEO's assassination attempts". :-)
On 2/27/2014 7:43 PM, john@crediblecontext.com wrote:
All, Does this get at the intent? Suggestions are more than welcome as I think we are breaking new ground here. I apologize if the format is not perfect, but if we crowdsource it, I think we can button it up. Cheers, Berard Whereas, Fadi Chehade was announced as the new CEO and President of ICANN at the organization’s meeting in Prague in June 2012, and Whereas, in his first presentation to the ICANN community in Prague in June 2012, he noted that “I am driven by building consensus. It is the reason I am here today. There is no other reason. I love doing this. Bringing communities that on the face of it could never be brought together to agree on common things is exactly what I strive to do,” and Whereas, as reported at the time he joined ICANN, “In selecting Chehade, ICANN went with someone who isn't well known and isn't well versed in the organization's core tasks — keeping the Internet address system running smoothly,” and Whereas, in the two years of his term, the landscape of the Internet and role played by ICANN has changed in ways equal only to the origin of the organization, including significant budget and staff increases, and Whereas, in response to the expanded attention to the domain name system and ICANN’s role in managing it, Chehade has championed changes in the policy development process, Therefore, beginning on March 26, 2014 with the passage of this motion, and continuing through the next ICANN public meeting in London in June 2014, the community, under the leadership of a review committee comprised of the GNSO’s constituency and stakeholder leadership, shall have the opportunity to offer comment on the performance of the CEO.
PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
Mikey, et. al., I think this is a perfect time for the community to offer its opinion of Fadi's performance. Come London, we will be two years into his stewardship. The method has always been open to suggestion and the motion I offered is a blunt instrument that will get the ball rolling. The reference to the constituencies and stakeholder groups is to note that this is a community wide activity, though the Council only has a role in the GNSO The intent is for some group of the leadership to serve as the recording secretaries for the contributions; not to control the activity. Somebody has to read and summarize the stuff. Finally, I don't see this as a battle, but a chance at a little self-determination as the world inside ICANN begins to look like the world outside. Hope this helps. Berard --------- Original Message --------- Subject: Re: [council] DRAFT/early thoughts on what a CEO performance review motion From: "Mike O'Connor" <mike@haven2.com> Date: 2/27/14 11:53 am To: "John Berard" <johnberard@aol.com> Cc: "Klaus Stoll" <kdrstoll@gmail.com>, "John Berard" <john@crediblecontext.com>, "Council" <council@gnso.icann.org> hi all, sometimes i come up with an idea late at night that sounds killer clever - and then the next morning i look at it in the light of day and realize that if i really want to pull this idea off, it's going to take a lot more thinking and refinement before it's ready. immediate reactions: - i'm uncomfortable with the “constituency and stakeholder leadership” phrase - if it's truly going to be reflective of the bottom-up process, the participation ought to be open, just like a working group is open - if it's going to be run like a working group, it ought to be chartered like a working group - problem statement, scope, approach, deliverables, all that jazz - if it's really going to be reflective of the whole community it ought to be a cross-community working group and not contained by the edges of the GNSO as i follow my nose down that chain of logic i find myself stepping back a bit. are we really ready to take this on? are we really the right group? is this really the best way to express our concerns? is this the battle that's most important to fight right now? mikey On Feb 27, 2014, at 1:20 PM, John Berard <johnberard@aol.com> wrote: Klaus, As I said, this is new ground and deserves the group's thinking. Consider my efforts merely the provocation. Berard -----Original Message----- From: Klaus Stoll <kdrstoll@gmail.com> To: john <john@crediblecontext.com>; council <council@gnso.icann.org> Sent: Thu, Feb 27, 2014 11:10 am Subject: Re: [council] DRAFT/early thoughts on what a CEO performance review motion Dear Berard, Dear All Whereas, I am not necessarily opposed to the motion, I wonder if the GNSO is the right place to move and develop it. As a newcomer to the GNSO Council, I want to be clear if this is inside the pdp remit of the council. Please advice! Yours, Klaus PS: Whereas I move, the motion should be filed under "clever ICANN CEO's assassination attempts". :-) On 2/27/2014 7:43 PM, john@crediblecontext.com wrote: All, Does this get at the intent? Suggestions are more than welcome as I think we are breaking new ground here. I apologize if the format is not perfect, but if we crowdsource it, I think we can button it up. Cheers, Berard Whereas, Fadi Chehade was announced as the new CEO and President of ICANN at the organization's meeting in Prague in June 2012, and Whereas, in his first presentation to the ICANN community in Prague in June 2012, he noted that “I am driven by building consensus. It is the reason I am here today. There is no other reason. I love doing this. Bringing communities that on the face of it could never be brought together to agree on common things is exactly what I strive to do,” and Whereas, as reported at the time he joined ICANN, “In selecting Chehade, ICANN went with someone who isn't well known and isn't well versed in the organization's core tasks - keeping the Internet address system running smoothly,” and Whereas, in the two years of his term, the landscape of the Internet and role played by ICANN has changed in ways equal only to the origin of the organization, including significant budget and staff increases, and Whereas, in response to the expanded attention to the domain name system and ICANN's role in managing it, Chehade has championed changes in the policy development process, Therefore, beginning on March 26, 2014 with the passage of this motion, and continuing through the next ICANN public meeting in London in June 2014, the community, under the leadership of a review committee comprised of the GNSO's constituency and stakeholder leadership, shall have the opportunity to offer comment on the performance of the CEO. PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
hi John, ok, here are some thoughts. - “constituencies and stakeholder groups” are critters that only live inside the GNSO, which is where i got that internal view. it seems to me a change to "ACs and SOs" would take us to a more inclusive “community” conversation direction. - i’m all for blunt instruments, but as we’ve seen recently loosely defined projects can have a variety of unintended consequences. i’d be fine with a motion to launch a *chartering* effort, but i’m edgy about launching the full-blown review with this little structure. reminds me of some of the IG stuff that’s going on — launch the plane, then build the wings. - i’m not sure the leadership is the only, or good, source of rapporteurs for the effort. again, a charter drafting group could lay a few lines down about who’s going to do what - i think a carefully written charter would also reduce possible misunderstanding about why the effort is being undertaken. so to restate — i’d find it easier to support a motion to launch a chartering exercise (pending review with the ISPCP), but i’m uncomfortable with a broadly-written motion to launch a review, as it reads right now. m On Feb 27, 2014, at 2:25 PM, john@crediblecontext.com wrote:
Mikey, et. al.,
I think this is a perfect time for the community to offer its opinion of Fadi's performance. Come London, we will be two years into his stewardship.
The method has always been open to suggestion and the motion I offered is a blunt instrument that will get the ball rolling.
The reference to the constituencies and stakeholder groups is to note that this is a community wide activity, though the Council only has a role in the GNSO
The intent is for some group of the leadership to serve as the recording secretaries for the contributions; not to control the activity. Somebody has to read and summarize the stuff.
Finally, I don't see this as a battle, but a chance at a little self-determination as the world inside ICANN begins to look like the world outside.
Hope this helps.
Berard
--------- Original Message --------- Subject: Re: [council] DRAFT/early thoughts on what a CEO performance review motion From: "Mike O'Connor" <mike@haven2.com> Date: 2/27/14 11:53 am To: "John Berard" <johnberard@aol.com> Cc: "Klaus Stoll" <kdrstoll@gmail.com>, "John Berard" <john@crediblecontext.com>, "Council" <council@gnso.icann.org>
hi all,
sometimes i come up with an idea late at night that sounds killer clever — and then the next morning i look at it in the light of day and realize that if i really want to pull this idea off, it’s going to take a lot more thinking and refinement before it’s ready.
immediate reactions:
- i’m uncomfortable with the “constituency and stakeholder leadership” phrase — if it’s truly going to be reflective of the bottom-up process, the participation ought to be open, just like a working group is open
- if it’s going to be run like a working group, it ought to be chartered like a working group — problem statement, scope, approach, deliverables, all that jazz
- if it’s really going to be reflective of the whole community it ought to be a cross-community working group and not contained by the edges of the GNSO
as i follow my nose down that chain of logic i find myself stepping back a bit. are we really ready to take this on? are we really the right group? is this really the best way to express our concerns?
is this the battle that’s most important to fight right now?
mikey
On Feb 27, 2014, at 1:20 PM, John Berard <johnberard@aol.com> wrote:
Klaus,
As I said, this is new ground and deserves the group's thinking. Consider my efforts merely the provocation.
Berard
-----Original Message----- From: Klaus Stoll <kdrstoll@gmail.com> To: john <john@crediblecontext.com>; council <council@gnso.icann.org> Sent: Thu, Feb 27, 2014 11:10 am Subject: Re: [council] DRAFT/early thoughts on what a CEO performance review motion
Dear Berard, Dear All
Whereas, I am not necessarily opposed to the motion, I wonder if the GNSO is the right place to move and develop it. As a newcomer to the GNSO Council, I want to be clear if this is inside the pdp remit of the council.
Please advice!
Yours, Klaus
PS: Whereas I move, the motion should be filed under "clever ICANN CEO's assassination attempts". :-)
On 2/27/2014 7:43 PM, john@crediblecontext.com wrote: All, Does this get at the intent? Suggestions are more than welcome as I think we are breaking new ground here. I apologize if the format is not perfect, but if we crowdsource it, I think we can button it up. Cheers, Berard Whereas, Fadi Chehade was announced as the new CEO and President of ICANN at the organization’s meeting in Prague in June 2012, and Whereas, in his first presentation to the ICANN community in Prague in June 2012, he noted that “I am driven by building consensus. It is the reason I am here today. There is no other reason. I love doing this. Bringing communities that on the face of it could never be brought together to agree on common things is exactly what I strive to do,” and Whereas, as reported at the time he joined ICANN, “In selecting Chehade, ICANN went with someone who isn't well known and isn't well versed in the organization's core tasks — keeping the Internet address system running smoothly,” and Whereas, in the two years of his term, the landscape of the Internet and role played by ICANN has changed in ways equal only to the origin of the organization, including significant budget and staff increases, and Whereas, in response to the expanded attention to the domain name system and ICANN’s role in managing it, Chehade has championed changes in the policy development process, Therefore, beginning on March 26, 2014 with the passage of this motion, and continuing through the next ICANN public meeting in London in June 2014, the community, under the leadership of a review committee comprised of the GNSO’s constituency and stakeholder leadership, shall have the opportunity to offer comment on the performance of the CEO.
PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
Hi, Totally agree, Mikey. I would, however, be more inclined to lend my support to this if it weren’t drafted as a motion, but rather something more in the lines of an informal recommendation from us to the SO/AC leadership adding to it the suggestion of chartering a CCWG, and leave it for them to decide if and how they would like to pursue it. I would also leave the part in the last paragraph regarding championing changes to the policy development process out, because, I don’t see that he has actually done that in this instance. Of course, if you all would like to add the new gTLD strawman topic of early last year, and specifically the inclusion of the 50 confusingly similar strings to the TM Clearinghouse records…, well…, that’s one time I feel the PDP was truly bypassed. On another less serious note…,
On 2/27/2014 7:43 PM, john@crediblecontext.com wrote:
[SNIP]
Whereas, Fadi Chehade was announced as the new CEO and President of ICANN at the organization’s meeting in Prague in June 2012, and
Whereas, in his first presentation to the ICANN community in Prague in June 2012, he noted that “I am driven by building consensus. It is the reason I am here today. There is no other reason. I love doing this. Bringing communities that on the face of it could never be brought together to agree on common things is exactly what I strive to do,”
Hasn’t Fadi, through his actions, actually managed to bring this community together and help us reach consensus…, at least on this topic?!?! :) Thanks. Amr On Feb 27, 2014, at 8:53 PM, Mike O'Connor <mike@haven2.com> wrote:
hi all,
sometimes i come up with an idea late at night that sounds killer clever — and then the next morning i look at it in the light of day and realize that if i really want to pull this idea off, it’s going to take a lot more thinking and refinement before it’s ready.
immediate reactions:
- i’m uncomfortable with the “constituency and stakeholder leadership” phrase — if it’s truly going to be reflective of the bottom-up process, the participation ought to be open, just like a working group is open
- if it’s going to be run like a working group, it ought to be chartered like a working group — problem statement, scope, approach, deliverables, all that jazz
- if it’s really going to be reflective of the whole community it ought to be a cross-community working group and not contained by the edges of the GNSO
as i follow my nose down that chain of logic i find myself stepping back a bit. are we really ready to take this on? are we really the right group? is this really the best way to express our concerns?
is this the battle that’s most important to fight right now?
mikey
On Feb 27, 2014, at 1:20 PM, John Berard <johnberard@aol.com> wrote:
Klaus,
As I said, this is new ground and deserves the group's thinking. Consider my efforts merely the provocation.
Berard
-----Original Message----- From: Klaus Stoll <kdrstoll@gmail.com> To: john <john@crediblecontext.com>; council <council@gnso.icann.org> Sent: Thu, Feb 27, 2014 11:10 am Subject: Re: [council] DRAFT/early thoughts on what a CEO performance review motion
Dear Berard, Dear All
Whereas, I am not necessarily opposed to the motion, I wonder if the GNSO is the right place to move and develop it. As a newcomer to the GNSO Council, I want to be clear if this is inside the pdp remit of the council.
Please advice!
Yours, Klaus
PS: Whereas I move, the motion should be filed under "clever ICANN CEO's assassination attempts". :-)
On 2/27/2014 7:43 PM, john@crediblecontext.com wrote:
All, Does this get at the intent? Suggestions are more than welcome as I think we are breaking new ground here. I apologize if the format is not perfect, but if we crowdsource it, I think we can button it up. Cheers, Berard Whereas, Fadi Chehade was announced as the new CEO and President of ICANN at the organization’s meeting in Prague in June 2012, and Whereas, in his first presentation to the ICANN community in Prague in June 2012, he noted that “I am driven by building consensus. It is the reason I am here today. There is no other reason. I love doing this. Bringing communities that on the face of it could never be brought together to agree on common things is exactly what I strive to do,” and Whereas, as reported at the time he joined ICANN, “In selecting Chehade, ICANN went with someone who isn't well known and isn't well versed in the organization's core tasks — keeping the Internet address system running smoothly,” and Whereas, in the two years of his term, the landscape of the Internet and role played by ICANN has changed in ways equal only to the origin of the organization, including significant budget and staff increases, and Whereas, in response to the expanded attention to the domain name system and ICANN’s role in managing it, Chehade has championed changes in the policy development process, Therefore, beginning on March 26, 2014 with the passage of this motion, and continuing through the next ICANN public meeting in London in June 2014, the community, under the leadership of a review committee comprised of the GNSO’s constituency and stakeholder leadership, shall have the opportunity to offer comment on the performance of the CEO.
PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
All, Notwithstanding John's idea to provoke us a little on this, I think there is some wise counsel from Mikey & Amr and probably reason to pause. Consider any proposed action or activity in the context of: 1. The role / remit of the Council 2. The potnetial impact on reputation / perception of the Council and / or ICANN Also, there's no reason, given that he has agreed to meet with us, that we cannot talk directly with Fadi about concerns or issues. I haven't spoken with him 1:1 for a while but we are (almost) certain to have the opportunity in Singapore. So, in addition to 1 & 2 above, time or timing. Jonathan From: Amr Elsadr [mailto:aelsadr@egyptig.org] Sent: 27 February 2014 20:35 To: Mike O'Connor Cc: John Berard; Klaus Stoll; John Berard; Council Subject: Re: [council] DRAFT/early thoughts on what a CEO performance review motion Hi, Totally agree, Mikey. I would, however, be more inclined to lend my support to this if it weren't drafted as a motion, but rather something more in the lines of an informal recommendation from us to the SO/AC leadership adding to it the suggestion of chartering a CCWG, and leave it for them to decide if and how they would like to pursue it. I would also leave the part in the last paragraph regarding championing changes to the policy development process out, because, I don't see that he has actually done that in this instance. Of course, if you all would like to add the new gTLD strawman topic of early last year, and specifically the inclusion of the 50 confusingly similar strings to the TM Clearinghouse records., well., that's one time I feel the PDP was truly bypassed. On another less serious note., On 2/27/2014 7:43 PM, john@crediblecontext.com wrote: [SNIP] Whereas, Fadi Chehade was announced as the new CEO and President of ICANN at the organization's meeting in Prague in June 2012, and Whereas, in his first presentation to the ICANN community in Prague in June 2012, he noted that "I am driven by building consensus. It is the reason I am here today. There is no other reason. I love doing this. Bringing communities that on the face of it could never be brought together to agree on common things is exactly what I strive to do," Hasn't Fadi, through his actions, actually managed to bring this community together and help us reach consensus., at least on this topic?!?! :) Thanks. Amr On Feb 27, 2014, at 8:53 PM, Mike O'Connor <mike@haven2.com> wrote: hi all, sometimes i come up with an idea late at night that sounds killer clever - and then the next morning i look at it in the light of day and realize that if i really want to pull this idea off, it's going to take a lot more thinking and refinement before it's ready. immediate reactions: - i'm uncomfortable with the "constituency and stakeholder leadership" phrase - if it's truly going to be reflective of the bottom-up process, the participation ought to be open, just like a working group is open - if it's going to be run like a working group, it ought to be chartered like a working group - problem statement, scope, approach, deliverables, all that jazz - if it's really going to be reflective of the whole community it ought to be a cross-community working group and not contained by the edges of the GNSO as i follow my nose down that chain of logic i find myself stepping back a bit. are we really ready to take this on? are we really the right group? is this really the best way to express our concerns? is this the battle that's most important to fight right now? mikey On Feb 27, 2014, at 1:20 PM, John Berard <johnberard@aol.com> wrote: Klaus, As I said, this is new ground and deserves the group's thinking. Consider my efforts merely the provocation. Berard -----Original Message----- From: Klaus Stoll <kdrstoll@gmail.com> To: john <john@crediblecontext.com>; council <council@gnso.icann.org> Sent: Thu, Feb 27, 2014 11:10 am Subject: Re: [council] DRAFT/early thoughts on what a CEO performance review motion Dear Berard, Dear All Whereas, I am not necessarily opposed to the motion, I wonder if the GNSO is the right place to move and develop it. As a newcomer to the GNSO Council, I want to be clear if this is inside the pdp remit of the council. Please advice! Yours, Klaus PS: Whereas I move, the motion should be filed under "clever ICANN CEO's assassination attempts". :-) On 2/27/2014 7:43 PM, john@crediblecontext.com wrote: All, Does this get at the intent? Suggestions are more than welcome as I think we are breaking new ground here. I apologize if the format is not perfect, but if we crowdsource it, I think we can button it up. Cheers, Berard Whereas, Fadi Chehade was announced as the new CEO and President of ICANN at the organization's meeting in Prague in June 2012, and Whereas, in his first presentation to the ICANN community in Prague in June 2012, he noted that "I am driven by building consensus. It is the reason I am here today. There is no other reason. I love doing this. Bringing communities that on the face of it could never be brought together to agree on common things is exactly what I strive to do," and Whereas, as reported at the time he joined ICANN, "In selecting Chehade, ICANN went with someone who isn't well known and isn't well versed in the organization's core tasks - keeping the Internet address system running smoothly," and Whereas, in the two years of his term, the landscape of the Internet and role played by ICANN has changed in ways equal only to the origin of the organization, including significant budget and staff increases, and Whereas, in response to the expanded attention to the domain name system and ICANN's role in managing it, Chehade has championed changes in the policy development process, Therefore, beginning on March 26, 2014 with the passage of this motion, and continuing through the next ICANN public meeting in London in June 2014, the community, under the leadership of a review committee comprised of the GNSO's constituency and stakeholder leadership, shall have the opportunity to offer comment on the performance of the CEO. PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com <http://www.haven2.com/> , HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
Jonathan, You are missing the point. You or us talking to Fadi is still management control. I want to create the chance for ANYONE to speak up. I am not wedded to a motion (especially if our portfolio does not allow it) but I would like catalyze the energy (as expressed by Mikey and Amr and Maria and James already on our list) is a way that demonstrates that we see the need. Whether the exercise strengthens Fadi's hand or slaps it, I think we should. But I am but one vote and have made but one suggested approach. As noted by Langston Hughes, "What happens to a dream deferred? / Does it dry up / like a raisin in the sun?" Dramatic, but pointed in the right direction. Cheers, Berard --------- Original Message --------- Subject: RE: [council] DRAFT/early thoughts on what a CEO performance review motion From: "Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson@afilias.info> Date: 2/27/14 12:49 pm To: "'Amr Elsadr'" <aelsadr@egyptig.org>, "'Mike O'Connor'" <mike@haven2.com> Cc: "'John Berard'" <johnberard@aol.com>, "'Klaus Stoll'" <kdrstoll@gmail.com>, "'John Berard'" <john@crediblecontext.com>, "'Council'" <council@gnso.icann.org> All, Notwithstanding John's idea to provoke us a little on this, I think there is some wise counsel from Mikey & Amr and probably reason to pause. Consider any proposed action or activity in the context of: 1. The role / remit of the Council 2. The potnetial impact on reputation / perception of the Council and / or ICANN Also, there's no reason, given that he has agreed to meet with us, that we cannot talk directly with Fadi about concerns or issues. I haven't spoken with him 1:1 for a while but we are (almost) certain to have the opportunity in Singapore. So, in addition to 1 & 2 above, time or timing. Jonathan From: Amr Elsadr [mailto:aelsadr@egyptig.org] Sent: 27 February 2014 20:35 To: Mike O'Connor Cc: John Berard; Klaus Stoll; John Berard; Council Subject: Re: [council] DRAFT/early thoughts on what a CEO performance review motion Hi, Totally agree, Mikey. I would, however, be more inclined to lend my support to this if it weren't drafted as a motion, but rather something more in the lines of an informal recommendation from us to the SO/AC leadership adding to it the suggestion of chartering a CCWG, and leave it for them to decide if and how they would like to pursue it. I would also leave the part in the last paragraph regarding championing changes to the policy development process out, because, I don't see that he has actually done that in this instance. Of course, if you all would like to add the new gTLD strawman topic of early last year, and specifically the inclusion of the 50 confusingly similar strings to the TM Clearinghouse records…, well…, that's one time I feel the PDP was truly bypassed. On another less serious note…, On 2/27/2014 7:43 PM, john@crediblecontext.com wrote: [SNIP] Whereas, Fadi Chehade was announced as the new CEO and President of ICANN at the organization's meeting in Prague in June 2012, and Whereas, in his first presentation to the ICANN community in Prague in June 2012, he noted that “I am driven by building consensus. It is the reason I am here today. There is no other reason. I love doing this. Bringing communities that on the face of it could never be brought together to agree on common things is exactly what I strive to do,” Hasn't Fadi, through his actions, actually managed to bring this community together and help us reach consensus…, at least on this topic?!?! :) Thanks. Amr On Feb 27, 2014, at 8:53 PM, Mike O'Connor <mike@haven2.com> wrote: hi all, sometimes i come up with an idea late at night that sounds killer clever - and then the next morning i look at it in the light of day and realize that if i really want to pull this idea off, it's going to take a lot more thinking and refinement before it's ready. immediate reactions: - i'm uncomfortable with the “constituency and stakeholder leadership” phrase - if it's truly going to be reflective of the bottom-up process, the participation ought to be open, just like a working group is open - if it's going to be run like a working group, it ought to be chartered like a working group - problem statement, scope, approach, deliverables, all that jazz - if it's really going to be reflective of the whole community it ought to be a cross-community working group and not contained by the edges of the GNSO as i follow my nose down that chain of logic i find myself stepping back a bit. are we really ready to take this on? are we really the right group? is this really the best way to express our concerns? is this the battle that's most important to fight right now? mikey On Feb 27, 2014, at 1:20 PM, John Berard <johnberard@aol.com> wrote: Klaus, As I said, this is new ground and deserves the group's thinking. Consider my efforts merely the provocation. Berard -----Original Message----- From: Klaus Stoll <kdrstoll@gmail.com> To: john <john@crediblecontext.com>; council <council@gnso.icann.org> Sent: Thu, Feb 27, 2014 11:10 am Subject: Re: [council] DRAFT/early thoughts on what a CEO performance review motion Dear Berard, Dear All Whereas, I am not necessarily opposed to the motion, I wonder if the GNSO is the right place to move and develop it. As a newcomer to the GNSO Council, I want to be clear if this is inside the pdp remit of the council. Please advice! Yours, Klaus PS: Whereas I move, the motion should be filed under "clever ICANN CEO's assassination attempts". :-) On 2/27/2014 7:43 PM, john@crediblecontext.com wrote: All, Does this get at the intent? Suggestions are more than welcome as I think we are breaking new ground here. I apologize if the format is not perfect, but if we crowdsource it, I think we can button it up. Cheers, Berard Whereas, Fadi Chehade was announced as the new CEO and President of ICANN at the organization's meeting in Prague in June 2012, and Whereas, in his first presentation to the ICANN community in Prague in June 2012, he noted that “I am driven by building consensus. It is the reason I am here today. There is no other reason. I love doing this. Bringing communities that on the face of it could never be brought together to agree on common things is exactly what I strive to do,” and Whereas, as reported at the time he joined ICANN, “In selecting Chehade, ICANN went with someone who isn't well known and isn't well versed in the organization's core tasks - keeping the Internet address system running smoothly,” and Whereas, in the two years of his term, the landscape of the Internet and role played by ICANN has changed in ways equal only to the origin of the organization, including significant budget and staff increases, and Whereas, in response to the expanded attention to the domain name system and ICANN's role in managing it, Chehade has championed changes in the policy development process, Therefore, beginning on March 26, 2014 with the passage of this motion, and continuing through the next ICANN public meeting in London in June 2014, the community, under the leadership of a review committee comprised of the GNSO's constituency and stakeholder leadership, shall have the opportunity to offer comment on the performance of the CEO. PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
Thanks John, That’s helpful to my understanding of where’re you’re coming from on this issue. However, notwithstanding the fact that you may view the forum as not being fit for (this) purpose, it is the case that the weekend sessions are open to anyone. Jonathan From: john@crediblecontext.com [mailto:john@crediblecontext.com] Sent: 27 February 2014 20:58 To: jrobinson@afilias.info; 'Amr Elsadr'; 'Mike O'Connor' Cc: 'John Berard'; 'Klaus Stoll'; 'Council' Subject: RE: [council] DRAFT/early thoughts on what a CEO performance review motion Jonathan, You are missing the point. You or us talking to Fadi is still management control. I want to create the chance for ANYONE to speak up. I am not wedded to a motion (especially if our portfolio does not allow it) but I would like catalyze the energy (as expressed by Mikey and Amr and Maria and James already on our list) is a way that demonstrates that we see the need. Whether the exercise strengthens Fadi's hand or slaps it, I think we should. But I am but one vote and have made but one suggested approach. As noted by Langston Hughes, "What happens to a dream deferred? / Does it dry up / like a raisin in the sun?" Dramatic, but pointed in the right direction. Cheers, Berard --------- Original Message --------- Subject: RE: [council] DRAFT/early thoughts on what a CEO performance review motion From: "Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson@afilias.info> Date: 2/27/14 12:49 pm To: "'Amr Elsadr'" <aelsadr@egyptig.org>, "'Mike O'Connor'" <mike@haven2.com> Cc: "'John Berard'" <johnberard@aol.com>, "'Klaus Stoll'" <kdrstoll@gmail.com>, "'John Berard'" <john@crediblecontext.com>, "'Council'" <council@gnso.icann.org> All, Notwithstanding John’s idea to provoke us a little on this, I think there is some wise counsel from Mikey & Amr and probably reason to pause. Consider any proposed action or activity in the context of: 1. The role / remit of the Council 2. The potnetial impact on reputation / perception of the Council and / or ICANN Also, there’s no reason, given that he has agreed to meet with us, that we cannot talk directly with Fadi about concerns or issues. I haven’t spoken with him 1:1 for a while but we are (almost) certain to have the opportunity in Singapore. So, in addition to 1 & 2 above, time or timing. Jonathan From: Amr Elsadr [mailto:aelsadr@egyptig.org] Sent: 27 February 2014 20:35 To: Mike O'Connor Cc: John Berard; Klaus Stoll; John Berard; Council Subject: Re: [council] DRAFT/early thoughts on what a CEO performance review motion Hi, Totally agree, Mikey. I would, however, be more inclined to lend my support to this if it weren’t drafted as a motion, but rather something more in the lines of an informal recommendation from us to the SO/AC leadership adding to it the suggestion of chartering a CCWG, and leave it for them to decide if and how they would like to pursue it. I would also leave the part in the last paragraph regarding championing changes to the policy development process out, because, I don’t see that he has actually done that in this instance. Of course, if you all would like to add the new gTLD strawman topic of early last year, and specifically the inclusion of the 50 confusingly similar strings to the TM Clearinghouse records…, well…, that’s one time I feel the PDP was truly bypassed. On another less serious note…, On 2/27/2014 7:43 PM, john@crediblecontext.com wrote: [SNIP] Whereas, Fadi Chehade was announced as the new CEO and President of ICANN at the organization’s meeting in Prague in June 2012, and Whereas, in his first presentation to the ICANN community in Prague in June 2012, he noted that “I am driven by building consensus. It is the reason I am here today. There is no other reason. I love doing this. Bringing communities that on the face of it could never be brought together to agree on common things is exactly what I strive to do,” Hasn’t Fadi, through his actions, actually managed to bring this community together and help us reach consensus…, at least on this topic?!?! :) Thanks. Amr On Feb 27, 2014, at 8:53 PM, Mike O'Connor <mike@haven2.com> wrote: hi all, sometimes i come up with an idea late at night that sounds killer clever — and then the next morning i look at it in the light of day and realize that if i really want to pull this idea off, it’s going to take a lot more thinking and refinement before it’s ready. immediate reactions: - i’m uncomfortable with the “constituency and stakeholder leadership” phrase — if it’s truly going to be reflective of the bottom-up process, the participation ought to be open, just like a working group is open - if it’s going to be run like a working group, it ought to be chartered like a working group — problem statement, scope, approach, deliverables, all that jazz - if it’s really going to be reflective of the whole community it ought to be a cross-community working group and not contained by the edges of the GNSO as i follow my nose down that chain of logic i find myself stepping back a bit. are we really ready to take this on? are we really the right group? is this really the best way to express our concerns? is this the battle that’s most important to fight right now? mikey On Feb 27, 2014, at 1:20 PM, John Berard <johnberard@aol.com> wrote: Klaus, As I said, this is new ground and deserves the group's thinking. Consider my efforts merely the provocation. Berard -----Original Message----- From: Klaus Stoll <kdrstoll@gmail.com> To: john <john@crediblecontext.com>; council <council@gnso.icann.org> Sent: Thu, Feb 27, 2014 11:10 am Subject: Re: [council] DRAFT/early thoughts on what a CEO performance review motion Dear Berard, Dear All Whereas, I am not necessarily opposed to the motion, I wonder if the GNSO is the right place to move and develop it. As a newcomer to the GNSO Council, I want to be clear if this is inside the pdp remit of the council. Please advice! Yours, Klaus PS: Whereas I move, the motion should be filed under "clever ICANN CEO's assassination attempts". :-) On 2/27/2014 7:43 PM, john@crediblecontext.com wrote: All, Does this get at the intent? Suggestions are more than welcome as I think we are breaking new ground here. I apologize if the format is not perfect, but if we crowdsource it, I think we can button it up. Cheers, Berard Whereas, Fadi Chehade was announced as the new CEO and President of ICANN at the organization’s meeting in Prague in June 2012, and Whereas, in his first presentation to the ICANN community in Prague in June 2012, he noted that “I am driven by building consensus. It is the reason I am here today. There is no other reason. I love doing this. Bringing communities that on the face of it could never be brought together to agree on common things is exactly what I strive to do,” and Whereas, as reported at the time he joined ICANN, “In selecting Chehade, ICANN went with someone who isn't well known and isn't well versed in the organization's core tasks — keeping the Internet address system running smoothly,” and Whereas, in the two years of his term, the landscape of the Internet and role played by ICANN has changed in ways equal only to the origin of the organization, including significant budget and staff increases, and Whereas, in response to the expanded attention to the domain name system and ICANN’s role in managing it, Chehade has championed changes in the policy development process, Therefore, beginning on March 26, 2014 with the passage of this motion, and continuing through the next ICANN public meeting in London in June 2014, the community, under the leadership of a review committee comprised of the GNSO’s constituency and stakeholder leadership, shall have the opportunity to offer comment on the performance of the CEO. PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com <http://www.haven2.com/> , HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
participants (6)
-
Amr Elsadr -
John Berard -
john＠crediblecontext.com -
Jonathan Robinson -
Klaus Stoll -
Mike O'Connor