Hi Stéphane, I'll follow up internally to provide the requested information. Best regards, Margie From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2012 2:08 PM To: council@gnso.icann.org Council Subject: Re: [council] Proposed Agenda Item - Elimination of Friday Public Board Meetings Is someone from Staff able to provide the requested information, whether it be on the list or during the next Council meeting? Stéphane Le 2 mai 2012 à 20:38, Neuman, Jeff a écrit : All, Given the announcement yesterday of the elimination of the public Board meetings at ICANN, I would like to put this on the Council agenda as a discussion item. I would like it if someone from ICANN that is familiar with the rationale behind this decision could give us an explanation of how and why that decision was made. Also, if the ICANN Board can unilaterally declare that all of its meetings will be private, does this set a precedent for its Supporting Organizations to do the same thing? I have not reviewed the bylaws with respect to the Council in a little bit, but does the Council have the discretion to declare that it will no longer hold a public GNSO Council meeting at ICANN? I think there has been enough disapproval expressed within the community in the last day or so that at least merits a discussion of this decision at the Council level. Thanks. Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs 21575 Ridgetop Circle, Sterling, VA 20166 Office: +1.571.434.5772 Mobile: +1.202.549.5079 Fax: +1.703.738.7965 / jeff.neuman@neustar.biz<mailto:jeff.neuman@neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz/>

Hi everybody I tend top agree with Stephane, however if I remember the "openess and transparency" discussions from Singapore, Berlin and Santiago (1999) the problem was that the broader public wanted to see also the individual pros and cons of Board members in a controversial issue before a decision was made. Fill transparency was the call and the Board used it indirectly as an argument to demonstrate its openess in contrast to the closed GAC meetings. The outcome, as it was described recently by Izumi, was that on the one hand we had open Board debates where Karl Auerbach spoke against a proposal and Mueller-Maguhn was silent and abstained while other internal Board discussions moved to "closed lunch and dinner sessions". With other words there is no ideal solution. What is needed is a right mix between open discussions (which are not just a "show for the masses") and closed meetings based on the Chatham House rules. New forms of interaction between the public and the Board - as proposed now - are a step in the right direction and we should test it out whether this works in Prague. BTW, what thje GAC is doing since a couple of years can be seen as a good example. The GAC has learned from the Baord, probably the Board can also learn from the GAC. Wolfgang ________________________________ Von: owner-council@gnso.icann.org im Auftrag von Stéphane Van Gelder Gesendet: Mi 02.05.2012 22:52 An: Margie Milam Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Council Betreff: Re: [council] Proposed Agenda Item - Elimination of Friday Public Board Meetings Thanks Margie, much appreciated. In the meantime, let me add some more context for the benefit of the Council. In CR, Steve asked me what I would think of the idea of shortening the ICANN meeting week by doing away with the Friday. This was floated to me as just an idea. I was given no indication that it would be implemented one day, let alone in Prague. And I was given no details on its possible implementation. When Steve discussed this with me, I did not get the sense that he meant to do a public consultation on this decision. This was a private conversation and not one where it was at any time made clear to me that I should break Steve's confidence and discuss this publicly. That is why I did not discuss this here. This week's announcement has, as Jeff says, generated some negative comments. Those that I have seen are that this decision was taken without any consultation and that doing away with the Friday Board meeting is detrimental to transparency. My own personal view is otherwise. I believe that cutting the Friday out of the ICANN week is a step in the right direction towards reducing costs and time challenges for meeting participants, including the Board. Over the past year, I have seen the Board work hard to improve its transparency. We now have detailed rationale on votes at every meeting and explanations of the issues being considered. So I am comfortable with giving the Board a little of the benefit of the doubt in trying out new ideas such as this one. Stéphane Le 2 mai 2012 à 22:10, Margie Milam a écrit : Hi Stéphane, I'll follow up internally to provide the requested information. Best regards, Margie From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2012 2:08 PM To: council@gnso.icann.org Council Subject: Re: [council] Proposed Agenda Item - Elimination of Friday Public Board Meetings Is someone from Staff able to provide the requested information, whether it be on the list or during the next Council meeting? Stéphane Le 2 mai 2012 à 20:38, Neuman, Jeff a écrit : All, Given the announcement yesterday of the elimination of the public Board meetings at ICANN, I would like to put this on the Council agenda as a discussion item. I would like it if someone from ICANN that is familiar with the rationale behind this decision could give us an explanation of how and why that decision was made. Also, if the ICANN Board can unilaterally declare that all of its meetings will be private, does this set a precedent for its Supporting Organizations to do the same thing? I have not reviewed the bylaws with respect to the Council in a little bit, but does the Council have the discretion to declare that it will no longer hold a public GNSO Council meeting at ICANN? I think there has been enough disapproval expressed within the community in the last day or so that at least merits a discussion of this decision at the Council level. Thanks. Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs 21575 Ridgetop Circle, Sterling, VA 20166 Office: +1.571.434.5772 Mobile: +1.202.549.5079 Fax: +1.703.738.7965 / jeff.neuman@neustar.biz <mailto:jeff.neuman@neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz <http://www.neustar.biz/>

Thanks Wolf and Wolfgang for your comments. If there is more decision on this, could I urge others to chime in so that we can ascertain whether a full agenda item is needed on this, or whether the discussion can be had on the list. Thanks, Stéphane Van Gelder Directeur Général / General manager INDOM Group NBT France ---------------- Head of Domain Operations Group NBT Le 3 mai 2012 à 11:38, <KnobenW@telekom.de> <KnobenW@telekom.de> a écrit :

My personal view on this is mixed.

Saving of time and money is always preferable - but not at the expense of transparency when the board is taking decisions at public meetings. SO/AC/BC reporting could be removed by providing them in written form only. But it makes a difference - to hold "a one-hour session following the Public Forum on Thursday afternoon..... and outline what they have heard during the week from their meetings with AC/SOs and their constituent parts and identify those matters they expect to be dealing with...", to decide upon during non-public board sessions and at the following ICANN Public Meeting to "report to the community on what they have dealt with since Prague" or - to discuss and take decisions publicly

I'm curious to know whether this board decision was based on the survey ("Improving Global Engagement") ICANN started in March where they solicited community input on improving e.g. effectiveness. For me the Public Meetings - with all their facets - are per se the highlights of global engagement.

Best regards Wolf-Ulrich

Von: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Stéphane Van Gelder Gesendet: Mittwoch, 2. Mai 2012 22:52 An: Margie Milam Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Council Betreff: Re: [council] Proposed Agenda Item - Elimination of Friday Public Board Meetings

Thanks Margie, much appreciated.

In the meantime, let me add some more context for the benefit of the Council.

In CR, Steve asked me what I would think of the idea of shortening the ICANN meeting week by doing away with the Friday. This was floated to me as just an idea. I was given no indication that it would be implemented one day, let alone in Prague. And I was given no details on its possible implementation.

When Steve discussed this with me, I did not get the sense that he meant to do a public consultation on this decision. This was a private conversation and not one where it was at any time made clear to me that I should break Steve's confidence and discuss this publicly. That is why I did not discuss this here.

This week's announcement has, as Jeff says, generated some negative comments. Those that I have seen are that this decision was taken without any consultation and that doing away with the Friday Board meeting is detrimental to transparency.

My own personal view is otherwise. I believe that cutting the Friday out of the ICANN week is a step in the right direction towards reducing costs and time challenges for meeting participants, including the Board. Over the past year, I have seen the Board work hard to improve its transparency. We now have detailed rationale on votes at every meeting and explanations of the issues being considered. So I am comfortable with giving the Board a little of the benefit of the doubt in trying out new ideas such as this one.

Stéphane

Le 2 mai 2012 à 22:10, Margie Milam a écrit :

...

Hi Stéphane, I’ll follow up internally to provide the requested information. Best regards, Margie From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2012 2:08 PM To: council@gnso.icann.org Council Subject: Re: [council] Proposed Agenda Item - Elimination of Friday Public Board Meetings Is someone from Staff able to provide the requested information, whether it be on the list or during the next Council meeting? Stéphane Le 2 mai 2012 à 20:38, Neuman, Jeff a écrit :

All, Given the announcement yesterday of the elimination of the public Board meetings at ICANN, I would like to put this on the Council agenda as a discussion item. I would like it if someone from ICANN that is familiar with the rationale behind this decision could give us an explanation of how and why that decision was made. Also, if the ICANN Board can unilaterally declare that all of its meetings will be private, does this set a precedent for its Supporting Organizations to do the same thing? I have not reviewed the bylaws with respect to the Council in a little bit, but does the Council have the discretion to declare that it will no longer hold a public GNSO Council meeting at ICANN?

I think there has been enough disapproval expressed within the community in the last day or so that at least merits a discussion of this decision at the Council level.

Thanks. Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs 21575 Ridgetop Circle, Sterling, VA 20166 Office: +1.571.434.5772 Mobile: +1.202.549.5079 Fax: +1.703.738.7965 / jeff.neuman@neustar.biz / www.neustar.biz

It's increasingly difficult (not to mention expensive) for people to be away for an entire week, up to three times a year. As such, I support any move that will reduce the time, travel and cost commitment, especially as the Friday Board sessions have really become "non events" (for lack of a better word). Reinstating them without a more probing analysis as to how to ensure that (1) the Board discussions are more transparent and open than they have become; and (2) ICANN meetings are as efficient and effective as they can be would, in my view, be pointless. Perhaps we can ask Steve whether this move is part of a commitment by the Board towards these objectives and, if so, what else is being considered. As such, Wolf-Ulrich's question as to the origin/impetus of this move is a good one. Cheers Mary Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP Chair, Graduate IP Programs UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH 03301USAEmail: mary.wong@law.unh.eduPhone: 1-603-513-5143Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.phpSelected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584 As of August 30, 2010, Franklin Pierce Law Center has affiliated with the University of New Hampshire and is now known as the University of New Hampshire School of Law. Please note that all email addresses have changed and now follow the convention: firstname.lastname@law.unh.edu. For more information on the University of New Hampshire School of Law, please visit law.unh.edu

...

...

From: William Drake <william.drake@uzh.ch> To: Stéphane Van Gelder<stephane.vangelder@indom.com> CC: "council@gnso.icann.org GNSO" <council@gnso.icann.org> Date: 5/3/2012 10:35 AM Subject: Re: [council] Proposed Agenda Item - Elimination of Friday Public Board Meetings I'd have preferred that they make better use of Fridays rather than eliminate it. Bill On May 3, 2012, at 3:16 PM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote: Thanks Wolf and Wolfgang for your comments. If there is more decision on this, could I urge others to chime in so that we can ascertain whether a full agenda item is needed on this, or whether the discussion can be had on the list. Thanks, Stéphane Van Gelder Directeur Général / General manager INDOM Group NBT France ---------------- Head of Domain Operations Group NBT Le 3 mai 2012 à 11:38, <KnobenW@telekom.de> <KnobenW@telekom.de> a écrit : My personal view on this is mixed. Saving of time and money is always preferable - but not at the expense of transparency when the board is taking decisions at public meetings. SO/AC/BC reporting could be removed by providing them in written form only. But it makes a difference - to hold "a one-hour session following the Public Forum on Thursday afternoon..... and outline what they have heard during the week from their meetings with AC/SOs and their constituent parts and identify those matters they expect to be dealing with...", to decide upon during non-public board sessions and at the following ICANN Public Meeting to "report to the community on what they have dealt with since Prague" or - to discuss and take decisions publicly I'm curious to know whether this board decision was based on the survey ("Improving Global Engagement") ICANN started in March where they solicited community input on improving e.g. effectiveness. For me the Public Meetings - with all their facets - are per se the highlights of global engagement. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich Von: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Stéphane Van Gelder Gesendet: Mittwoch, 2. Mai 2012 22:52 An: Margie Milam Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Council Betreff: Re: [council] Proposed Agenda Item - Elimination of Friday Public Board Meetings Thanks Margie, much appreciated. In the meantime, let me add some more context for the benefit of the Council. In CR, Steve asked me what I would think of the idea of shortening the ICANN meeting week by doing away with the Friday. This was floated to me as just an idea. I was given no indication that it would be implemented one day, let alone in Prague. And I was given no details on its possible implementation. When Steve discussed this with me, I did not get the sense that he meant to do a public consultation on this decision. This was a private conversation and not one where it was at any time made clear to me that I should break Steve's confidence and discuss this publicly. That is why I did not discuss this here. This week's announcement has, as Jeff says, generated some negative comments. Those that I have seen are that this decision was taken without any consultation and that doing away with the Friday Board meeting is detrimental to transparency. My own personal view is otherwise. I believe that cutting the Friday out of the ICANN week is a step in the right direction towards reducing costs and time challenges for meeting participants, including the Board. Over the past year, I have seen the Board work hard to improve its transparency. We now have detailed rationale on votes at every meeting and explanations of the issues being considered. So I am comfortable with giving the Board a little of the benefit of the doubt in trying out new ideas such as this one. Stéphane Le 2 mai 2012 à 22:10, Margie Milam a écrit : Hi Stéphane, I’ll follow up internally to provide the requested information. Best regards, Margie From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2012 2:08 PM To: council@gnso.icann.org Council Subject: Re: [council] Proposed Agenda Item - Elimination of Friday Public Board Meetings Is someone from Staff able to provide the requested information, whether it be on the list or during the next Council meeting? Stéphane Le 2 mai 2012 à 20:38, Neuman, Jeff a écrit : All, Given the announcement yesterday of the elimination of the public Board meetings at ICANN, I would like to put this on the Council agenda as a discussion item. I would like it if someone from ICANN that is familiar with the rationale behind this decision could give us an explanation of how and why that decision was made. Also, if the ICANN Board can unilaterally declare that all of its meetings will be private, does this set a precedent for its Supporting Organizations to do the same thing? I have not reviewed the bylaws with respect to the Council in a little bit, but does the Council have the discretion to declare that it will no longer hold a public GNSO Council meeting at ICANN? I think there has been enough disapproval expressed within the community in the last day or so that at least merits a discussion of this decision at the Council level. Thanks. Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs 21575 Ridgetop Circle, Sterling, VA 20166 Office: +1.571.434.5772 Mobile: +1.202.549.5079 Fax: +1.703.738.7965 / jeff.neuman@neustar.biz / www.neustar.biz

Thanks Ching. Personally, I must admit to not understanding your line of reasoning on pay. Many ICANN attendees are not paid to come to meetings. To them, cost reduction is a serious issue. As for the Board, I don't think pay is the right tack here either. Board members are not paid, they are compensated (if they choose to accept the compensation) a rather measly 35k$ for what is in essence a full-time job all year round. I do think we as a community need to be mindful of what we ask of the Board. I often get the feeling this community considers that Board members are a limitless commodity to be used at will, and that should they dare complain about their workload, then tough! I think if we want to continue to attract the right people to the Board, we also need to understand that after (more than) a week's work, the Board may not feel the current Friday organization is the best and that they want to experiment with different configurations. I do agree, however, that this should not be done at the cost of transparency. Until I see this new format in Prague, I am unable to say whether that is the case or not. Once again, all these are personal statements. Stéphane Van Gelder Directeur Général / General manager INDOM Group NBT France ---------------- Head of Domain Operations Group NBT Le 3 mai 2012 à 17:42, Ching Chiao a écrit :

I think we are mixing meeting efficiency and transparency here. What's important to the community, IMHO, is transparency. Some inefficiency (shorted / longer length of ICANN week) can somehow can be tolerated as most of us are part-timers / volunteers. If we are all getting paid for what we're doing for ICANN, we should be able to make rather quick and simply decision for this issue -- cut it short. Does some (if not all) Board members get paid for their services to ICANN ?

If shorter meeting time can help boost efficiency (i.e. decision has to be made in X time), that's fine. If longer meeting time can help ensure quality of decision (including the rational), that's fine too. If ICANN struggles in half way, then it should at least ensure transparency (and public increase) is always there.

Just my two cents.

Ching

On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 9:16 PM, Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@indom.com> wrote: Thanks Wolf and Wolfgang for your comments.

If there is more decision on this, could I urge others to chime in so that we can ascertain whether a full agenda item is needed on this, or whether the discussion can be had on the list.

Thanks,

Stéphane Van Gelder Directeur Général / General manager INDOM Group NBT France ---------------- Head of Domain Operations Group NBT

Le 3 mai 2012 à 11:38, <KnobenW@telekom.de> <KnobenW@telekom.de> a écrit :

...

My personal view on this is mixed.

Saving of time and money is always preferable - but not at the expense of transparency when the board is taking decisions at public meetings. SO/AC/BC reporting could be removed by providing them in written form only. But it makes a difference - to hold "a one-hour session following the Public Forum on Thursday afternoon..... and outline what they have heard during the week from their meetings with AC/SOs and their constituent parts and identify those matters they expect to be dealing with...", to decide upon during non-public board sessions and at the following ICANN Public Meeting to "report to the community on what they have dealt with since Prague" or - to discuss and take decisions publicly

I'm curious to know whether this board decision was based on the survey ("Improving Global Engagement") ICANN started in March where they solicited community input on improving e.g. effectiveness. For me the Public Meetings - with all their facets - are per se the highlights of global engagement.

Best regards Wolf-Ulrich

Von: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Stéphane Van Gelder Gesendet: Mittwoch, 2. Mai 2012 22:52 An: Margie Milam Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Council Betreff: Re: [council] Proposed Agenda Item - Elimination of Friday Public Board Meetings

Thanks Margie, much appreciated.

In the meantime, let me add some more context for the benefit of the Council.

In CR, Steve asked me what I would think of the idea of shortening the ICANN meeting week by doing away with the Friday. This was floated to me as just an idea. I was given no indication that it would be implemented one day, let alone in Prague. And I was given no details on its possible implementation.

When Steve discussed this with me, I did not get the sense that he meant to do a public consultation on this decision. This was a private conversation and not one where it was at any time made clear to me that I should break Steve's confidence and discuss this publicly. That is why I did not discuss this here.

This week's announcement has, as Jeff says, generated some negative comments. Those that I have seen are that this decision was taken without any consultation and that doing away with the Friday Board meeting is detrimental to transparency.

My own personal view is otherwise. I believe that cutting the Friday out of the ICANN week is a step in the right direction towards reducing costs and time challenges for meeting participants, including the Board. Over the past year, I have seen the Board work hard to improve its transparency. We now have detailed rationale on votes at every meeting and explanations of the issues being considered. So I am comfortable with giving the Board a little of the benefit of the doubt in trying out new ideas such as this one.

Stéphane

Le 2 mai 2012 à 22:10, Margie Milam a écrit :

...

Hi Stéphane, I’ll follow up internally to provide the requested information. Best regards, Margie From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2012 2:08 PM To: council@gnso.icann.org Council Subject: Re: [council] Proposed Agenda Item - Elimination of Friday Public Board Meetings Is someone from Staff able to provide the requested information, whether it be on the list or during the next Council meeting? Stéphane Le 2 mai 2012 à 20:38, Neuman, Jeff a écrit :

All, Given the announcement yesterday of the elimination of the public Board meetings at ICANN, I would like to put this on the Council agenda as a discussion item. I would like it if someone from ICANN that is familiar with the rationale behind this decision could give us an explanation of how and why that decision was made. Also, if the ICANN Board can unilaterally declare that all of its meetings will be private, does this set a precedent for its Supporting Organizations to do the same thing? I have not reviewed the bylaws with respect to the Council in a little bit, but does the Council have the discretion to declare that it will no longer hold a public GNSO Council meeting at ICANN?

I think there has been enough disapproval expressed within the community in the last day or so that at least merits a discussion of this decision at the Council level.

Thanks. Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs 21575 Ridgetop Circle, Sterling, VA 20166 Office: +1.571.434.5772 Mobile: +1.202.549.5079 Fax: +1.703.738.7965 / jeff.neuman@neustar.biz / www.neustar.biz

-- Ching CHIAO Vice President, DotAsia Organisation LTD. Chair, Asia Pacific Networking Group Member of ICANN GNSO Council & RySG ===================================== Email: chiao@registry.asia Skype: chiao_rw Mobile: +886-918211372 | +86-13520187032 www.registry.asia | www.apngcamp.asia www.facebook.com/ching.chiao

I agree with Stephane's comment regarding time and efficiency, but also with Thomas' comment regarding transparency. I'm all for doing what's reasonable to keep meetings manageable. However, the board selectively discloses information about its decisions as it is. I'd like to hear about why this improves transparency. If there's a credible reason, I'm likely to be okay with it. -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org on behalf of Thomas Rickert Sent: Thu 5/3/2012 9:27 AM To: Stéphane Van Gelder Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Proposed Agenda Item - Elimination of Friday Public Board Meetings Stéphane, all, holding meetings for the sake of having them and wasting everyone's valuable time should by all means avoided (I am sure most of you have seen the educational videos "Meetings, Bloody Meetings" with John Cleese, which I highly recommend :-)). I also understand that it is a challenge to travel to three meetings per year that last for a week. Thus, I fully support the idea of making meetings more effective. Therefore, - publishing the committee reports sounds reasonable. - adding two sessions with community interaction sounds reasonable, too. However, I am not convinced that the public Board meeting should be sacrificed to shorten the meeting by one day. Looking at the number of attendees, only those interested in the Board meetings participate on Friday. Participation is voluntary and those who want to spend less time at the meetings have the choice to leave. Eliminating the public Board meeting to save time sounds patronizing to me. I do agree that it is at times a theatre and that the format could be improved. Nonetheless, even if it is a theatre, participants get the chance to learn how the group works and what the views of the board members are. I also think it makes a difference for board members to express their views publicly, so they might even be more diligent (I am not indicating board members are not diligent, but chaining the format may have that effect). While I do believe that the Board made this change with the best intentions, I think it was wrong (at least for the Prague meeting to start) and inadequately implemented. - There was no consultation (at least I have not seen any) on this subject matter to get community feedback whether or not the community wishes the board to save its time. - In its announcement, ICANN does not offer any alternatives to keep transparency at the same level. This gives raise to the suspicion that there will be less transparency in the future. - Timing for this change is unfortunate given the TAS interruption, the upcoming controversial batching process and the IANA bid. Taking the meetings out of the public arena may be perceived as not wishing to publicly discuss these (and certainly other) important matters. Maybe meetings can actually be streamlined and end earlier, but in my view, this should not be done in a phase where ICANN is exposed to criticism as much as now. Thomas ___________________________________________________________ Thomas Rickert, Attorney at Law Managing Partner, Schollmeyer & Rickert Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft mbH www.anwaelte.de Director Names & Numbers, eco Association of the German Internet Industry www.eco.de Am 03.05.2012 um 15:16 schrieb Stéphane Van Gelder: Thanks Wolf and Wolfgang for your comments. If there is more decision on this, could I urge others to chime in so that we can ascertain whether a full agenda item is needed on this, or whether the discussion can be had on the list. Thanks, Stéphane Van Gelder Directeur Général / General manager INDOM Group NBT France ---------------- Head of Domain Operations Group NBT Le 3 mai 2012 à 11:38, <KnobenW@telekom.de> <KnobenW@telekom.de> a écrit : My personal view on this is mixed. Saving of time and money is always preferable - but not at the expense of transparency when the board is taking decisions at public meetings. SO/AC/BC reporting could be removed by providing them in written form only. But it makes a difference - to hold "a one-hour session following the Public Forum on Thursday afternoon..... and outline what they have heard during the week from their meetings with AC/SOs and their constituent parts and identify those matters they expect to be dealing with...", to decide upon during non-public board sessions and at the following ICANN Public Meeting to "report to the community on what they have dealt with since Prague" or - to discuss and take decisions publicly I'm curious to know whether this board decision was based on the survey ("Improving Global Engagement") ICANN started in March where they solicited community input on improving e.g. effectiveness. For me the Public Meetings - with all their facets - are per se the highlights of global engagement. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Stéphane Van Gelder Gesendet: Mittwoch, 2. Mai 2012 22:52 An: Margie Milam Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Council Betreff: Re: [council] Proposed Agenda Item - Elimination of Friday Public Board Meetings Thanks Margie, much appreciated. In the meantime, let me add some more context for the benefit of the Council. In CR, Steve asked me what I would think of the idea of shortening the ICANN meeting week by doing away with the Friday. This was floated to me as just an idea. I was given no indication that it would be implemented one day, let alone in Prague. And I was given no details on its possible implementation. When Steve discussed this with me, I did not get the sense that he meant to do a public consultation on this decision. This was a private conversation and not one where it was at any time made clear to me that I should break Steve's confidence and discuss this publicly. That is why I did not discuss this here. This week's announcement has, as Jeff says, generated some negative comments. Those that I have seen are that this decision was taken without any consultation and that doing away with the Friday Board meeting is detrimental to transparency. My own personal view is otherwise. I believe that cutting the Friday out of the ICANN week is a step in the right direction towards reducing costs and time challenges for meeting participants, including the Board. Over the past year, I have seen the Board work hard to improve its transparency. We now have detailed rationale on votes at every meeting and explanations of the issues being considered. So I am comfortable with giving the Board a little of the benefit of the doubt in trying out new ideas such as this one. Stéphane Le 2 mai 2012 à 22:10, Margie Milam a écrit : Hi Stéphane, I'll follow up internally to provide the requested information. Best regards, Margie From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2012 2:08 PM To: council@gnso.icann.org Council Subject: Re: [council] Proposed Agenda Item - Elimination of Friday Public Board Meetings Is someone from Staff able to provide the requested information, whether it be on the list or during the next Council meeting? Stéphane Le 2 mai 2012 à 20:38, Neuman, Jeff a écrit : All, Given the announcement yesterday of the elimination of the public Board meetings at ICANN, I would like to put this on the Council agenda as a discussion item. I would like it if someone from ICANN that is familiar with the rationale behind this decision could give us an explanation of how and why that decision was made. Also, if the ICANN Board can unilaterally declare that all of its meetings will be private, does this set a precedent for its Supporting Organizations to do the same thing? I have not reviewed the bylaws with respect to the Council in a little bit, but does the Council have the discretion to declare that it will no longer hold a public GNSO Council meeting at ICANN? I think there has been enough disapproval expressed within the community in the last day or so that at least merits a discussion of this decision at the Council level. Thanks. Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs 21575 Ridgetop Circle, Sterling, VA 20166 Office: +1.571.434.5772 Mobile: +1.202.549.5079 Fax: +1.703.738.7965 / jeff.neuman@neustar.biz <mailto:jeff.neuman@neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz <http://www.neustar.biz/> ___________________________________________________________ Thomas Rickert, Rechtsanwalt Schollmeyer & Rickert Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft m.b.H. (i.e. law firm) Geschäftsführer / CEO: Torsten Schollmeyer, Thomas Rickert HRB 9262, AG Bonn Büro / Office Bonn: Kaiserplatz 7-9, 53113 Bonn, Germany Phone: +49 (0)228 74 898 - 0 Büro / Office Frankfurt a.M.: Savignystraße 43, 60325 Frankfurt, Germany Phone: +49 (0)69 714 021 - 56 Zentralfax: +49 (0)228 74 898 - 66 mailto: rickert@anwaelte.de skype-id: trickert web: www.anwaelte.de