Also think this is worth of discussion, but should include other SO/ACs in an effort to provide a "360" review. J. From: Mike O'Connor <mike@haven2.com<mailto:mike@haven2.com>> Date: Thursday, February 20, 2014 at 13:35 To: John Berard <john@crediblecontext.com<mailto:john@crediblecontext.com>> Cc: GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] Crowdsourcing a bi-ennial performance review of the ICANN CEO hi John, i sense a certain irony in your reference to crowdsourcing, but i went ahead and circulated your proposal amongst the ISPCP - initial reactions are positive. i personally think it's a great idea. mikey On Feb 20, 2014, at 10:28 AM, john@crediblecontext.com<mailto:john@crediblecontext.com> wrote: All, I think the next meeting of the ICANN, scheduled for London, marks two years of Fadi Chehade's term as the organization's President and CEO. In light of the interest driven by the Strategy Panels in what is called crowd sourcing, I wonder if we should consider instigating a performance review of the executive using that method. We can announce the initiative in Singapore and prepare a report for the London meeting. The standing for the Council is the growing executive influence over policy, looking no further than the rise of appointed strategy panels in lieu of community-based working groups. What is your view? Cheers, Berard PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com<http://www.haven2.com>, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)

I think it's an interesting idea - but I also see the risk for it to turn into a free-for-all of national or interest group sections peeved at certain Internet governance developments. I didn't hear so many complaints from other NCPH side colleagues about 'growing executive influence over policy' during the TCMH debacle, so colour me curious about this initiative, willing to be convinced - subject to a fair methodology that won't be astro-turfed - but also somewhat skeptical of the context and motivation. Maria On 20 February 2014 21:11, <john@crediblecontext.com> wrote:

James,

Yes, we should include all, but the ball has to start rolling somewhere. I figure we can do that.

Berard

--------- Original Message --------- Subject: Re: [council] Crowdsourcing a bi-ennial performance review of the ICANN CEO From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com> Date: 2/20/14 1:01 pm To: "Mike O'Connor" <mike@haven2.com>, "John Berard" < john@crediblecontext.com> Cc: "Council" <council@gnso.icann.org>

Also think this is worth of discussion, but should include other SO/ACs in an effort to provide a "360" review.

J.

From: Mike O'Connor <mike@haven2.com> Date: Thursday, February 20, 2014 at 13:35 To: John Berard <john@crediblecontext.com> Cc: GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Crowdsourcing a bi-ennial performance review of the ICANN CEO

hi John,

i sense a certain irony in your reference to crowdsourcing, but i went ahead and circulated your proposal amongst the ISPCP -- initial reactions are positive. i personally think it's a great idea.

mikey

On Feb 20, 2014, at 10:28 AM, john@crediblecontext.com wrote:

All,

I think the next meeting of the ICANN, scheduled for London, marks two years of Fadi Chehade's term as the organization's President and CEO. In light of the interest driven by the Strategy Panels in what is called crowd sourcing, I wonder if we should consider instigating a performance review of the executive using that method.

We can announce the initiative in Singapore and prepare a report for the London meeting. The standing for the Council is the growing executive influence over policy, looking no further than the rise of appointed strategy panels in lieu of community-based working groups.

What is your view?

Cheers,

Berard

PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)

Hi John, I take it back. You were not merely right, but prescient: Board confirms: ICANN seeks non-US HQ <http://domainincite.com/15837-board-confirms-icann-seeks-non-us-hq> And yet another bunch of strategy panels, composed only of Board members. FYI I'm sanguine about globalisation and agree with Fadi's overall direction, but can't help wondering what kind of bottom-up multi-stakeholder process led to last week's decision. So on reflection I think it's not actually a bad idea to think about some sort feedback mechanism. As you say, Council's role is being taken over and I believe we should guard against that not in a territorial way but because there needs to be concerted action to preserve the multistakeholder model. Happy to discuss further, m On 21 February 2014 16:20, <john@crediblecontext.com> wrote:

Maria,

This is not so much about complaints (though it is clear that the policy responsibilities of the GNSO in general and its Council in particular are being squeezed by CEO-appointed strategy panels at the top and unmeasured crowdsourcing at the bottom) as it is an attempt to give the community the opportunity to offer its view of the path ICANN has taken in the last two years under Fadi's leadership. There is some irony in using a crowdsourced model (as it is a contentious recommendation of the strategy panel on multi-stakeholder innovation), but it if is a good idea, it is a good idea.

When you consider last year's tumult over policy v. implementation, this year's Internet governance rallies (I note specifically that the upcoming meeting in Brazil has left the long & upstanding ICANN community members ccTLD managers feeling left out) and the expansion of strategy panels (first four, then five and now a bit of a blank check from the Board to the CEO), the Council has reason to ask for community input.

Whether we call it a review of Fadi's performance or a review of how process has changed in the last two years is not relevant, but I see the two as one-in-the-same.

Even if no one hears what is said, I think we ought to ask.

I would be happy to offer a motion to that effect at the Singapore meeting so as to make it an official action (should it pass, of course!).

Cheers,

Berard

--------- Original Message --------- Subject: Re: Re: [council] Crowdsourcing a bi-ennial performance review of the ICANN CEO From: "Maria Farrell" <maria.farrell@gmail.com> Date: 2/21/14 2:06 am To: "John Berard" <john@crediblecontext.com> Cc: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com>, "Mike O'Connor" < mike@haven2.com>, "Council" <council@gnso.icann.org>

I think it's an interesting idea - but I also see the risk for it to turn into a free-for-all of national or interest group sections peeved at certain Internet governance developments.

I didn't hear so many complaints from other NCPH side colleagues about 'growing executive influence over policy' during the TCMH debacle, so colour me curious about this initiative, willing to be convinced - subject to a fair methodology that won't be astro-turfed - but also somewhat skeptical of the context and motivation.

Maria

On 20 February 2014 21:11, <john@crediblecontext.com> wrote:

...

James,

Yes, we should include all, but the ball has to start rolling somewhere. I figure we can do that.

Berard

--------- Original Message --------- Subject: Re: [council] Crowdsourcing a bi-ennial performance review of the ICANN CEO From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com> Date: 2/20/14 1:01 pm To: "Mike O'Connor" <mike@haven2.com>, "John Berard" < john@crediblecontext.com> Cc: "Council" <council@gnso.icann.org>

Also think this is worth of discussion, but should include other SO/ACs in an effort to provide a "360" review.

J.

From: Mike O'Connor <mike@haven2.com> Date: Thursday, February 20, 2014 at 13:35 To: John Berard <john@crediblecontext.com> Cc: GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Crowdsourcing a bi-ennial performance review of the ICANN CEO

hi John,

i sense a certain irony in your reference to crowdsourcing, but i went ahead and circulated your proposal amongst the ISPCP -- initial reactions are positive. i personally think it's a great idea.

mikey

On Feb 20, 2014, at 10:28 AM, john@crediblecontext.com wrote:

All,

I think the next meeting of the ICANN, scheduled for London, marks two years of Fadi Chehade's term as the organization's President and CEO. In light of the interest driven by the Strategy Panels in what is called crowd sourcing, I wonder if we should consider instigating a performance review of the executive using that method.

We can announce the initiative in Singapore and prepare a report for the London meeting. The standing for the Council is the growing executive influence over policy, looking no further than the rise of appointed strategy panels in lieu of community-based working groups.

What is your view?

Cheers,

Berard

PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)

All, Having considered this a little since the thread was first posted, my thought is that we could hold onto this thought until Singapore. The face-to-face meetings are an excellent time to in-person feedback and have real-time dialogue. The Council is likely to have meetings and other opportunities for interaction with: 1. The CEO and the management team 2. The Board (who appoints the CEO) 3. Our own community colleagues We could thread any concerns into our engagement in Singapore and take it from there. Jonathan From: john@crediblecontext.com [mailto:john@crediblecontext.com] Sent: 24 February 2014 23:56 To: Maria Farrell Cc: James M. Bladel; Mike O'Connor; Council Subject: Re: [council] Crowdsourcing a bi-ennial performance review of the ICANN CEO All, I am beginning to hear support for this idea from the GNSO more broadly and the CSG in particular. How can we start the ball rolling so that all can comment? Shall we consider a motion to seek community input on the evolution of the policy making process in the last two years, with emphasis on new management? Shall we ask the heads of the GNSO constituencies and stakeholder groups to take on the task? What are the other ways to initiate this exercise? Berard --------- Original Message --------- Subject: Re: Re: Re: [council] Crowdsourcing a bi-ennial performance review of the ICANN CEO From: "Maria Farrell" <maria.farrell@gmail.com> Date: 2/24/14 7:50 am To: "John Berard" <john@crediblecontext.com> Cc: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com>, "Mike O'Connor" <mike@haven2.com>, "Council" <council@gnso.icann.org> Hi John, I take it back. You were not merely right, but prescient: Board confirms: ICANN seeks non-US HQ <http://domainincite.com/15837-board-confirms-icann-seeks-non-us-hq> And yet another bunch of strategy panels, composed only of Board members. FYI I'm sanguine about globalisation and agree with Fadi's overall direction, but can't help wondering what kind of bottom-up multi-stakeholder process led to last week's decision. So on reflection I think it's not actually a bad idea to think about some sort feedback mechanism. As you say, Council's role is being taken over and I believe we should guard against that not in a territorial way but because there needs to be concerted action to preserve the multistakeholder model. Happy to discuss further, m On 21 February 2014 16:20, <john@crediblecontext.com> wrote: Maria, This is not so much about complaints (though it is clear that the policy responsibilities of the GNSO in general and its Council in particular are being squeezed by CEO-appointed strategy panels at the top and unmeasured crowdsourcing at the bottom) as it is an attempt to give the community the opportunity to offer its view of the path ICANN has taken in the last two years under Fadi's leadership. There is some irony in using a crowdsourced model (as it is a contentious recommendation of the strategy panel on multi-stakeholder innovation), but it if is a good idea, it is a good idea. When you consider last year's tumult over policy v. implementation, this year's Internet governance rallies (I note specifically that the upcoming meeting in Brazil has left the long & upstanding ICANN community members ccTLD managers feeling left out) and the expansion of strategy panels (first four, then five and now a bit of a blank check from the Board to the CEO), the Council has reason to ask for community input. Whether we call it a review of Fadi's performance or a review of how process has changed in the last two years is not relevant, but I see the two as one-in-the-same. Even if no one hears what is said, I think we ought to ask. I would be happy to offer a motion to that effect at the Singapore meeting so as to make it an official action (should it pass, of course!). Cheers, Berard --------- Original Message --------- Subject: Re: Re: [council] Crowdsourcing a bi-ennial performance review of the ICANN CEO From: "Maria Farrell" <maria.farrell@gmail.com> Date: 2/21/14 2:06 am To: "John Berard" <john@crediblecontext.com> Cc: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com>, "Mike O'Connor" <mike@haven2.com>, "Council" <council@gnso.icann.org> I think it's an interesting idea - but I also see the risk for it to turn into a free-for-all of national or interest group sections peeved at certain Internet governance developments. I didn't hear so many complaints from other NCPH side colleagues about 'growing executive influence over policy' during the TCMH debacle, so colour me curious about this initiative, willing to be convinced - subject to a fair methodology that won't be astro-turfed - but also somewhat skeptical of the context and motivation. Maria On 20 February 2014 21:11, <john@crediblecontext.com> wrote: James, Yes, we should include all, but the ball has to start rolling somewhere. I figure we can do that. Berard --------- Original Message --------- Subject: Re: [council] Crowdsourcing a bi-ennial performance review of the ICANN CEO From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com> Date: 2/20/14 1:01 pm To: "Mike O'Connor" <mike@haven2.com>, "John Berard" <john@crediblecontext.com> Cc: "Council" <council@gnso.icann.org> Also think this is worth of discussion, but should include other SO/ACs in an effort to provide a “360” review. J. From: Mike O'Connor <mike@haven2.com> Date: Thursday, February 20, 2014 at 13:35 To: John Berard <john@crediblecontext.com> Cc: GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Crowdsourcing a bi-ennial performance review of the ICANN CEO hi John, i sense a certain irony in your reference to crowdsourcing, but i went ahead and circulated your proposal amongst the ISPCP — initial reactions are positive. i personally think it’s a great idea. mikey On Feb 20, 2014, at 10:28 AM, john@crediblecontext.com wrote: All, I think the next meeting of the ICANN, scheduled for London, marks two years of Fadi Chehade's term as the organization's President and CEO. In light of the interest driven by the Strategy Panels in what is called crowd sourcing, I wonder if we should consider instigating a performance review of the executive using that method. We can announce the initiative in Singapore and prepare a report for the London meeting. The standing for the Council is the growing executive influence over policy, looking no further than the rise of appointed strategy panels in lieu of community-based working groups. What is your view? Cheers, Berard PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)

I don't disagree but I don't want to lose the opportunity for a lack of initiation! The weekend sessions are for all the GNSO so we could put it on the agenda then. Berard Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 26, 2014, at 12:13 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@egyptig.org> wrote:

Hi John,

I don’t think any of this is a bad idea at all, and would like to (for my part) encourage community participation throughout all SOs and ACs.

Having said that, I’m willing to stick my neck out and be the, so far, sole person on this list to go ahead and say that a GNSO Council motion to get this particular ball rolling is not a good idea. I find all the ad-hoc processes (and I do mean all of them) going on to be a growing matter of concern, but don’t believe that Council is the right place to get a performance review started. When and if any ad-hoc group’s work starts to mess with the GNSO’s PDP as spelled out in the PDP Manual, the GNSO WG Guidelines and ICANN’s by-laws…, then sure…, that will be the time for us to push back.

In the meantime, I suggest that if our SGs and constituencies are in favour of taking this up, that it be initiated somewhere else (like the SO/AC leadership list), and not by a formal GNSO Council motion.

Just my thoughts.

Thanks.

Amr

...

On Feb 25, 2014, at 12:56 AM, john@crediblecontext.com wrote:

All,

I am beginning to hear support for this idea from the GNSO more broadly and the CSG in particular. How can we start the ball rolling so that all can comment?

Shall we consider a motion to seek community input on the evolution of the policy making process in the last two years, with emphasis on new management?

Shall we ask the heads of the GNSO constituencies and stakeholder groups to take on the task?

What are the other ways to initiate this exercise?

Berard

--------- Original Message --------- Subject: Re: Re: Re: [council] Crowdsourcing a bi-ennial performance review of the ICANN CEO From: "Maria Farrell" <maria.farrell@gmail.com> Date: 2/24/14 7:50 am To: "John Berard" <john@crediblecontext.com> Cc: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com>, "Mike O'Connor" <mike@haven2.com>, "Council" <council@gnso.icann.org>

Hi John,

I take it back. You were not merely right, but prescient: Board confirms: ICANN seeks non-US HQ <http://domainincite.com/15837-board-confirms-icann-seeks-non-us-hq> And yet another bunch of strategy panels, composed only of Board members. FYI I'm sanguine about globalisation and agree with Fadi's overall direction, but can't help wondering what kind of bottom-up multi-stakeholder process led to last week's decision.

So on reflection I think it's not actually a bad idea to think about some sort feedback mechanism. As you say, Council's role is being taken over and I believe we should guard against that not in a territorial way but because there needs to be concerted action to preserve the multistakeholder model. Happy to discuss further, m

...

On 21 February 2014 16:20, <john@crediblecontext.com> wrote: Maria,

This is not so much about complaints (though it is clear that the policy responsibilities of the GNSO in general and its Council in particular are being squeezed by CEO-appointed strategy panels at the top and unmeasured crowdsourcing at the bottom) as it is an attempt to give the community the opportunity to offer its view of the path ICANN has taken in the last two years under Fadi's leadership. There is some irony in using a crowdsourced model (as it is a contentious recommendation of the strategy panel on multi-stakeholder innovation), but it if is a good idea, it is a good idea.

When you consider last year's tumult over policy v. implementation, this year's Internet governance rallies (I note specifically that the upcoming meeting in Brazil has left the long & upstanding ICANN community members ccTLD managers feeling left out) and the expansion of strategy panels (first four, then five and now a bit of a blank check from the Board to the CEO), the Council has reason to ask for community input.

Whether we call it a review of Fadi's performance or a review of how process has changed in the last two years is not relevant, but I see the two as one-in-the-same.

Even if no one hears what is said, I think we ought to ask.

I would be happy to offer a motion to that effect at the Singapore meeting so as to make it an official action (should it pass, of course!).

Cheers,

Berard

--------- Original Message --------- Subject: Re: Re: [council] Crowdsourcing a bi-ennial performance review of the ICANN CEO From: "Maria Farrell" <maria.farrell@gmail.com> Date: 2/21/14 2:06 am To: "John Berard" <john@crediblecontext.com> Cc: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com>, "Mike O'Connor" <mike@haven2.com>, "Council" <council@gnso.icann.org>

I think it's an interesting idea - but I also see the risk for it to turn into a free-for-all of national or interest group sections peeved at certain Internet governance developments.

I didn't hear so many complaints from other NCPH side colleagues about 'growing executive influence over policy' during the TCMH debacle, so colour me curious about this initiative, willing to be convinced - subject to a fair methodology that won't be astro-turfed - but also somewhat skeptical of the context and motivation.

Maria

...

On 20 February 2014 21:11, <john@crediblecontext.com> wrote: James,

Yes, we should include all, but the ball has to start rolling somewhere. I figure we can do that.

Berard

--------- Original Message --------- Subject: Re: [council] Crowdsourcing a bi-ennial performance review of the ICANN CEO From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com> Date: 2/20/14 1:01 pm To: "Mike O'Connor" <mike@haven2.com>, "John Berard" <john@crediblecontext.com> Cc: "Council" <council@gnso.icann.org>

Also think this is worth of discussion, but should include other SO/ACs in an effort to provide a “360” review.

J.

From: Mike O'Connor <mike@haven2.com> Date: Thursday, February 20, 2014 at 13:35 To: John Berard <john@crediblecontext.com> Cc: GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Crowdsourcing a bi-ennial performance review of the ICANN CEO

hi John,

i sense a certain irony in your reference to crowdsourcing, but i went ahead and circulated your proposal amongst the ISPCP — initial reactions are positive. i personally think it’s a great idea.

mikey

On Feb 20, 2014, at 10:28 AM, john@crediblecontext.com wrote:

All,

I think the next meeting of the ICANN, scheduled for London, marks two years of Fadi Chehade's term as the organization's President and CEO. In light of the interest driven by the Strategy Panels in what is called crowd sourcing, I wonder if we should consider instigating a performance review of the executive using that method.

We can announce the initiative in Singapore and prepare a report for the London meeting. The standing for the Council is the growing executive influence over policy, looking no further than the rise of appointed strategy panels in lieu of community-based working groups.

What is your view?

Cheers,

Berard

PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)

Hi, Interesting idea, but what makes you think anyone on the Board would care what the crowd had to say. They barely care about what the duly constituted SOs, ACs or Review Teams have to say beyond what the by-laws force them to care about. Now, if we can get National government ministers to crowd source the review, maybe there is a chance they will pay attention. avri On 20-Feb-14 22:11, john@crediblecontext.com wrote:

James, Yes, we should include all, but the ball has to start rolling somewhere. I figure we can do that. Berard

--------- Original Message --------- Subject: Re: [council] Crowdsourcing a bi-ennial performance review of the ICANN CEO From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com> Date: 2/20/14 1:01 pm To: "Mike O'Connor" <mike@haven2.com>, "John Berard" <john@crediblecontext.com> Cc: "Council" <council@gnso.icann.org>

Also think this is worth of discussion, but should include other SO/ACs in an effort to provide a “360” review. J. From: Mike O'Connor <mike@haven2.com <mailto:mike@haven2.com>> Date: Thursday, February 20, 2014 at 13:35 To: John Berard <john@crediblecontext.com <mailto:john@crediblecontext.com>> Cc: GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org <mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] Crowdsourcing a bi-ennial performance review of the ICANN CEO hi John, i sense a certain irony in your reference to crowdsourcing, but i went ahead and circulated your proposal amongst the ISPCP — initial reactions are positive. i personally think it’s a great idea. mikey

On Feb 20, 2014, at 10:28 AM, john@crediblecontext.com <mailto:john@crediblecontext.com> wrote:

All, I think the next meeting of the ICANN, scheduled for London, marks two years of Fadi Chehade's term as the organization's President and CEO. In light of the interest driven by the Strategy Panels in what is called crowd sourcing, I wonder if we should consider instigating a performance review of the executive using that method. We can announce the initiative in Singapore and prepare a report for the London meeting. The standing for the Council is the growing executive influence over policy, looking no further than the rise of appointed strategy panels in lieu of community-based working groups. What is your view? Cheers, Berard

PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com <http://www.haven2.com>, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)

Agree. In fact, ignoring something like this might be a clear indication that the Community has a problem with the ICANN Board. J. From: "john@crediblecontext.com<mailto:john@crediblecontext.com>" <john@crediblecontext.com<mailto:john@crediblecontext.com>> Date: Friday, February 21, 2014 at 10:21 To: Avri Doria <avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: RE: Re: [council] Crowdsourcing a bi-ennial performance review of the ICANN CEO Avri, Note my earlier email. It may be that no one will hear, but that does not mean we should not ask. Berard --------- Original Message --------- Subject: Re: [council] Crowdsourcing a bi-ennial performance review of the ICANN CEO From: "Avri Doria" <avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>> Date: 2/21/14 3:31 am To: "Council" <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Hi, Interesting idea, but what makes you think anyone on the Board would care what the crowd had to say. They barely care about what the duly constituted SOs, ACs or Review Teams have to say beyond what the by-laws force them to care about. Now, if we can get National government ministers to crowd source the review, maybe there is a chance they will pay attention. avri On 20-Feb-14 22:11, john@crediblecontext.com<mailto:john@crediblecontext.com> wrote:

James, Yes, we should include all, but the ball has to start rolling somewhere. I figure we can do that. Berard

--------- Original Message --------- Subject: Re: [council] Crowdsourcing a bi-ennial performance review of the ICANN CEO From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>> Date: 2/20/14 1:01 pm To: "Mike O'Connor" <mike@haven2.com<mailto:mike@haven2.com>>, "John Berard" <john@crediblecontext.com<mailto:john@crediblecontext.com>> Cc: "Council" <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>>

Also think this is worth of discussion, but should include other SO/ACs in an effort to provide a "360" review. J. From: Mike O'Connor <mike@haven2.com<mailto:mike@haven2.com> ><mailto:mike@haven2.com>> Date: Thursday, February 20, 2014 at 13:35 To: John Berard <john@crediblecontext.com<mailto:john@crediblecontext.com> <mailto:john@crediblecontext.com>> Cc: GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> <mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] Crowdsourcing a bi-ennial performance review of the ICANN CEO hi John, i sense a certain irony in your reference to crowdsourcing, but i went ahead and circulated your proposal amongst the ISPCP - initial reactions are positive. i personally think it's a great idea. mikey

On Feb 20, 2014, at 10:28 AM, john@crediblecontext.com<mailto:john@crediblecontext.com> <mailto:john@crediblecontext.com> wrote:

All, I think the next meeting of the ICANN, scheduled for London, marks two years of Fadi Chehade's term as the organization's President and CEO. In light of the interest driven by the Strategy Panels in what is called crowd sourcing, I wonder if we should consider instigating a performance review of the executive using that method. We can announce the initiative in Singapore and prepare a report for the London meeting. The standing for the Council is the growing executive influence over policy, looking no further than the rise of appointed strategy panels in lieu of community-based working groups. What is your view? Cheers, Berard

PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com <http://www.haven2.com>, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)

On 01-Mar-14 10:33, Avri Doria wrote:

Hi,

I have been informed that sometimes my first reaction can be harsh. This is a failing I have spent many years trying to reform, since once I hear the other sides of an issue, my perception frequently softens a wee bit and even .

Saw the incomplete sentence: and even causes me to change my mind on occasion. Unfortunately sometimes I type more quickly than I

self-repress and I am grateful for the intervention of friends who warm me when my harshness threshold goes too high.

This makes me think that perhaps you are right and this is a good pilot of the newly recommended modality. It would be helpful to see how this mechanism could work on issues in a community such as ours.

I would be interested in possibly seconding a motion, if we can phrase it in the form of a request that the ICANN board initiate such an exercise. Perhaps they could even request that Beth, or some from her branded institute for which we have seen multiple notices, lead us in the activity to show us how it is done. Of course, the board would not be bound by the outcome, but if they initiated the process, they might at least consider it as seriously as they consider the panoply of other advisory panel recommendations.

I think the exercise may be rather important in that it is only the most active of voices that we hear on the subject of our leadership. And whether we love Fadi or not as our leader, or even believe we need a leader of his caliber and vision, it is a topic where we need to hear the broader voice of the community before we know whether the community favors an extended mandate.

Thanks you for suggesting this, and apologies for my initial pooh-poohing.

avri

On 21-Feb-14 17:21, john@crediblecontext.com wrote:

...

Avri, Note my earlier email. It may be that no one will hear, but that does not mean we should not ask. Berard

--------- Original Message --------- Subject: Re: [council] Crowdsourcing a bi-ennial performance review of the ICANN CEO From: "Avri Doria" <avri@acm.org> Date: 2/21/14 3:31 am To: "Council" <council@gnso.icann.org>

Hi,

Interesting idea, but what makes you think anyone on the Board would care what the crowd had to say. They barely care about what the duly constituted SOs, ACs or Review Teams have to say beyond what the by-laws force them to care about.

Now, if we can get National government ministers to crowd source the review, maybe there is a chance they will pay attention.

avri

On 20-Feb-14 22:11, john@crediblecontext.com wrote: > James, > Yes, we should include all, but the ball has to start rolling > somewhere. I figure we can do that. > Berard > > --------- Original Message --------- > Subject: Re: [council] Crowdsourcing a bi-ennial performance review > of the ICANN CEO > From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com> > Date: 2/20/14 1:01 pm > To: "Mike O'Connor" <mike@haven2.com>, "John Berard" > <john@crediblecontext.com> > Cc: "Council" <council@gnso.icann.org> > > Also think this is worth of discussion, but should include other > SO/ACs in an effort to provide a “360” review. > J. > From: Mike O'Connor <mike@haven2.com ><mailto:mike@haven2.com>> > Date: Thursday, February 20, 2014 at 13:35 > To: John Berard <john@crediblecontext.com > <mailto:john@crediblecontext.com>> > Cc: GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org > <mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> > Subject: Re: [council] Crowdsourcing a bi-ennial performance review > of the ICANN CEO > hi John, > i sense a certain irony in your reference to crowdsourcing, but i > went ahead and circulated your proposal amongst the ISPCP — initial > reactions are positive. i personally think it’s a great idea. > mikey > > On Feb 20, 2014, at 10:28 AM, john@crediblecontext.com > <mailto:john@crediblecontext.com> wrote: > > All, > I think the next meeting of the ICANN, scheduled for London, > marks two years of Fadi Chehade's term as the organization's > President and CEO. In light of the interest driven by the > Strategy Panels in what is called crowd sourcing, I wonder if we > should consider instigating a performance review of the > executive using that method. > We can announce the initiative in Singapore and prepare a report > for the London meeting. The standing for the Council is the > growing executive influence over policy, looking no further than > the rise of appointed strategy panels in lieu of community-based > working groups. > What is your view? > Cheers, > Berard > > > > > PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com > <http://www.haven2.com>, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, > Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) >

i like the idea of a review by the community. i was uncomfortable with the motion that John wrote, which a) seemed too GNSO-focused and b) launched a review without first taking some time to describe what the goals/process would be. i also like the idea of nudging this toward the Board, or some other body that speaks for all the AC/SOs. the trouble i see with that idea is that the Board may very well come back and say - we already give Fadi performance feedback, why are you coming to us with this? - we don’t speak for the community, we tend to the larger interests of ICANN how about this for an alternative approach… what if Jonathan and the other AC/SO leaders put together their own “Montevideo Statement” (after consultation with their respective gangs) that assessed their view of the current situation and, among other things, called for the chartering and launch of such a review, independent of the Board? this reminds me a bit of the climate that led to the creation of the DSSA — which was consciously chartered as a CCWG. the Board eventually screwed the DSSA up, but we got a lot done until they did. maybe we wire this one up a little more tightly, to avoid Board meddling this time around. mikey On Mar 1, 2014, at 4:51 AM, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info> wrote:

Perhaps me too.

Persuasive input.

Thanks Avri

On 1 Mar 2014 10:15, "Avri Doria" <avri@acm.org> wrote:

On 01-Mar-14 10:33, Avri Doria wrote:

Hi,

I have been informed that sometimes my first reaction can be harsh. This is a failing I have spent many years trying to reform, since once I hear the other sides of an issue, my perception frequently softens a wee bit and even .

Saw the incomplete sentence:

and even causes me to change my mind on occasion.

Unfortunately sometimes I type more quickly than I self-repress and I am grateful for the intervention of friends who warm me when my harshness threshold goes too high.

This makes me think that perhaps you are right and this is a good pilot of the newly recommended modality. It would be helpful to see how this mechanism could work on issues in a community such as ours.

I would be interested in possibly seconding a motion, if we can phrase it in the form of a request that the ICANN board initiate such an exercise. Perhaps they could even request that Beth, or some from her branded institute for which we have seen multiple notices, lead us in the activity to show us how it is done. Of course, the board would not be bound by the outcome, but if they initiated the process, they might at least consider it as seriously as they consider the panoply of other advisory panel recommendations.

I think the exercise may be rather important in that it is only the most active of voices that we hear on the subject of our leadership. And whether we love Fadi or not as our leader, or even believe we need a leader of his caliber and vision, it is a topic where we need to hear the broader voice of the community before we know whether the community favors an extended mandate.

Thanks you for suggesting this, and apologies for my initial pooh-poohing.

avri

On 21-Feb-14 17:21, john@crediblecontext.com wrote: Avri, Note my earlier email. It may be that no one will hear, but that does not mean we should not ask. Berard

--------- Original Message --------- Subject: Re: [council] Crowdsourcing a bi-ennial performance review of the ICANN CEO From: "Avri Doria" <avri@acm.org> Date: 2/21/14 3:31 am To: "Council" <council@gnso.icann.org>

Hi,

Interesting idea, but what makes you think anyone on the Board would care what the crowd had to say. They barely care about what the duly constituted SOs, ACs or Review Teams have to say beyond what the by-laws force them to care about.

Now, if we can get National government ministers to crowd source the review, maybe there is a chance they will pay attention.

avri

On 20-Feb-14 22:11, john@crediblecontext.com wrote: > James, > Yes, we should include all, but the ball has to start rolling > somewhere. I figure we can do that. > Berard > > --------- Original Message --------- > Subject: Re: [council] Crowdsourcing a bi-ennial performance review > of the ICANN CEO > From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com> > Date: 2/20/14 1:01 pm > To: "Mike O'Connor" <mike@haven2.com>, "John Berard" > <john@crediblecontext.com> > Cc: "Council" <council@gnso.icann.org> > > Also think this is worth of discussion, but should include other > SO/ACs in an effort to provide a “360” review. > J. > From: Mike O'Connor <mike@haven2.com ><mailto:mike@haven2.com>> > Date: Thursday, February 20, 2014 at 13:35 > To: John Berard <john@crediblecontext.com > <mailto:john@crediblecontext.com>> > Cc: GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org > <mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> > Subject: Re: [council] Crowdsourcing a bi-ennial performance review > of the ICANN CEO > hi John, > i sense a certain irony in your reference to crowdsourcing, but i > went ahead and circulated your proposal amongst the ISPCP — initial > reactions are positive. i personally think it’s a great idea. > mikey > > On Feb 20, 2014, at 10:28 AM, john@crediblecontext.com > <mailto:john@crediblecontext.com> wrote: > > All, > I think the next meeting of the ICANN, scheduled for London, > marks two years of Fadi Chehade's term as the organization's > President and CEO. In light of the interest driven by the > Strategy Panels in what is called crowd sourcing, I wonder if we > should consider instigating a performance review of the > executive using that method. > We can announce the initiative in Singapore and prepare a report > for the London meeting. The standing for the Council is the > growing executive influence over policy, looking no further than > the rise of appointed strategy panels in lieu of community-based > working groups. > What is your view? > Cheers, > Berard > > > > > PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com > <http://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, I've been following this discussion for a while and I'm a bit doubtful on it being directed to Fahdi directly, I think that the way ICANN is run today is due in great part to Fahdi's initiative but with the Boards support. Perhaps the review should be more general aim at how ICANN has been operating these last years without focusing it almost exclusively on Fahdi's term. Best regards, Osvaldo ________________________________________ De: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [owner-council@gnso.icann.org] En nombre de Amr Elsadr [aelsadr@egyptig.org] Enviado el: sábado, 01 de marzo de 2014 11:34 a.m. Para: Mike O'Connor CC: Jonathan Robinson; Avri Doria; Council Asunto: Re: [council] Crowdsourcing a bi-ennial performance review of the ICANN CEO Hi, I share Mikey's concerns about this being a Board-initiated action. I tend to also agree that the AC/SO leadership approach is the most suitable one for this endeavour. A little nudge from us to that effect wouldn’t be a bad idea, perhaps in the form of a letter from Jonathan on behalf of the Council, urging the AC/SO leaders to launch a chartering effort for a CCWG to perform this review. I just don’t see this as a motion that we need a Councillor to make, have it seconded then finally voted on. I’ve only been following Council activities for a couple of years, but I tend to feel that that is not the purpose they’re meant to serve. Thanks. Amr On Mar 1, 2014, at 1:27 PM, Mike O'Connor <mike@haven2.com<mailto:mike@haven2.com>> wrote: i like the idea of a review by the community. i was uncomfortable with the motion that John wrote, which a) seemed too GNSO-focused and b) launched a review without first taking some time to describe what the goals/process would be. i also like the idea of nudging this toward the Board, or some other body that speaks for all the AC/SOs. the trouble i see with that idea is that the Board may very well come back and say - we already give Fadi performance feedback, why are you coming to us with this? - we don’t speak for the community, we tend to the larger interests of ICANN how about this for an alternative approach… what if Jonathan and the other AC/SO leaders put together their own “Montevideo Statement” (after consultation with their respective gangs) that assessed their view of the current situation and, among other things, called for the chartering and launch of such a review, independent of the Board? this reminds me a bit of the climate that led to the creation of the DSSA — which was consciously chartered as a CCWG. the Board eventually screwed the DSSA up, but we got a lot done until they did. maybe we wire this one up a little more tightly, to avoid Board meddling this time around. mikey On Mar 1, 2014, at 4:51 AM, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>> wrote: Perhaps me too. Persuasive input. Thanks Avri On 1 Mar 2014 10:15, "Avri Doria" <avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>> wrote: On 01-Mar-14 10:33, Avri Doria wrote: Hi, I have been informed that sometimes my first reaction can be harsh. This is a failing I have spent many years trying to reform, since once I hear the other sides of an issue, my perception frequently softens a wee bit and even . Saw the incomplete sentence: and even causes me to change my mind on occasion. Unfortunately sometimes I type more quickly than I self-repress and I am grateful for the intervention of friends who warm me when my harshness threshold goes too high. This makes me think that perhaps you are right and this is a good pilot of the newly recommended modality. It would be helpful to see how this mechanism could work on issues in a community such as ours. I would be interested in possibly seconding a motion, if we can phrase it in the form of a request that the ICANN board initiate such an exercise. Perhaps they could even request that Beth, or some from her branded institute for which we have seen multiple notices, lead us in the activity to show us how it is done. Of course, the board would not be bound by the outcome, but if they initiated the process, they might at least consider it as seriously as they consider the panoply of other advisory panel recommendations. I think the exercise may be rather important in that it is only the most active of voices that we hear on the subject of our leadership. And whether we love Fadi or not as our leader, or even believe we need a leader of his caliber and vision, it is a topic where we need to hear the broader voice of the community before we know whether the community favors an extended mandate. Thanks you for suggesting this, and apologies for my initial pooh-poohing. avri On 21-Feb-14 17:21, john@crediblecontext.com<mailto:john@crediblecontext.com> wrote: Avri, Note my earlier email. It may be that no one will hear, but that does not mean we should not ask. Berard --------- Original Message --------- Subject: Re: [council] Crowdsourcing a bi-ennial performance review of the ICANN CEO From: "Avri Doria" <avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>> Date: 2/21/14 3:31 am To: "Council" <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Hi, Interesting idea, but what makes you think anyone on the Board would care what the crowd had to say. They barely care about what the duly constituted SOs, ACs or Review Teams have to say beyond what the by-laws force them to care about. Now, if we can get National government ministers to crowd source the review, maybe there is a chance they will pay attention. avri On 20-Feb-14 22:11, john@crediblecontext.com<mailto:john@crediblecontext.com> wrote: > James, > Yes, we should include all, but the ball has to start rolling > somewhere. I figure we can do that. > Berard > > --------- Original Message --------- > Subject: Re: [council] Crowdsourcing a bi-ennial performance review > of the ICANN CEO > From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>> > Date: 2/20/14 1:01 pm > To: "Mike O'Connor" <mike@haven2.com<mailto:mike@haven2.com>>, "John Berard" > <john@crediblecontext.com<mailto:john@crediblecontext.com>> > Cc: "Council" <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> > > Also think this is worth of discussion, but should include other > SO/ACs in an effort to provide a “360” review. > J. > From: Mike O'Connor <mike@haven2.com<mailto:mike@haven2.com> ><mailto:mike@haven2.com<mailto:mike@haven2.com>>> > Date: Thursday, February 20, 2014 at 13:35 > To: John Berard <john@crediblecontext.com<mailto:john@crediblecontext.com> > <mailto:john@crediblecontext.com<mailto:john@crediblecontext.com>>> > Cc: GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> > <mailto:council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>>> > Subject: Re: [council] Crowdsourcing a bi-ennial performance review > of the ICANN CEO > hi John, > i sense a certain irony in your reference to crowdsourcing, but i > went ahead and circulated your proposal amongst the ISPCP — initial > reactions are positive. i personally think it’s a great idea. > mikey > > On Feb 20, 2014, at 10:28 AM, john@crediblecontext.com<mailto:john@crediblecontext.com> > <mailto:john@crediblecontext.com<mailto:john@crediblecontext.com>> wrote: > > All, > I think the next meeting of the ICANN, scheduled for London, > marks two years of Fadi Chehade's term as the organization's > President and CEO. In light of the interest driven by the > Strategy Panels in what is called crowd sourcing, I wonder if we > should consider instigating a performance review of the > executive using that method. > We can announce the initiative in Singapore and prepare a report > for the London meeting. The standing for the Council is the > growing executive influence over policy, looking no further than > the rise of appointed strategy panels in lieu of community-based > working groups. > What is your view? > Cheers, > Berard > > > > > PHONE: 651-647-6109<tel:651-647-6109>, FAX: 866-280-2356<tel:866-280-2356>, WEB: www.haven2.com<http://www.haven2.com/> > <http://www.haven2.com<http://www.haven2.com/>>, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, > Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) > PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com<http://www.haven2.com/>, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) El presente correo y cualquier posible archivo adjunto está dirigido únicamente al destinatario del mensaje y contiene información que puede ser confidencial. Si Ud. no es el destinatario correcto por favor notifique al remitente respondiendo anexando este mensaje y elimine inmediatamente el e-mail y los posibles archivos adjuntos al mismo de su sistema. Está prohibida cualquier utilización, difusión o copia de este e-mail por cualquier persona o entidad que no sean las específicas destinatarias del mensaje. ANTEL no acepta ninguna responsabilidad con respecto a cualquier comunicación que haya sido emitida incumpliendo nuestra Política de Seguridad de la Información This e-mail and any attachment is confidential and is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not intended recipient please inform the sender immediately, answering this e-mail and delete it as well as the attached files. Any use, circulation or copy of this e-mail by any person or entity that is not the specific addressee(s) is prohibited. ANTEL is not responsible for any communication emitted without respecting our Information Security Policy.

All, very interesting discussion indeed! I like the idea of a Board driven initiative, so my suggestion would be that we ask Jonathan to reach out to Steve and hear his thoughts. Should the board not see itself in a position to do it, the GNSO-Council could lead on it. Thomas ============= thomas-rickert.tel +49.228.74.898.0

Am 01.03.2014 um 20:42 schrieb john@crediblecontext.com:

All.

My motivation for lighting this fuse was to bring into the light of day a discussion of how ICANN has changed during Fadi's tenure and whether is has been good or bad for the organization and the policy development process. It is clear that there is noise from every corner of the community about its disenfranchisement.

The tools at my disposal (other than moral suasion) are those available to me as a Councillor. We can put it on our weekend agenda, we can put it on the agenda for the public meeting (promoting both to the full GNSO), we can construct some sort of callfor an issue report or we can move that the initiative be official (though we don't likely have standing).

I have no commitment to any one approach, but I am committed to the discussion

So, how best do we make that happen?

Berard

--------- Original Message --------- Subject: RE: [council] Crowdsourcing a bi-ennial performance review of the ICANN CEO From: "Novoa, Osvaldo" <onovoa@antel.com.uy> Date: 3/1/14 5:39 am To: "Amr Elsadr" <aelsadr@egyptig.org>, "Mike O'Connor" <mike@haven2.com> Cc: "Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson@afilias.info>, "Avri Doria" <avri@acm.org>, "Council" <council@gnso.icann.org>

Hi, I've been following this discussion for a while and I'm a bit doubtful on it being directed to Fahdi directly, I think that the way ICANN is run today is due in great part to Fahdi's initiative but with the Boards support. Perhaps the review should be more general aim at how ICANN has been operating these last years without focusing it almost exclusively on Fahdi's term. Best regards, Osvaldo ________________________________________ De: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [owner-council@gnso.icann.org] En nombre de Amr Elsadr [aelsadr@egyptig.org] Enviado el: sábado, 01 de marzo de 2014 11:34 a.m. Para: Mike O'Connor CC: Jonathan Robinson; Avri Doria; Council Asunto: Re: [council] Crowdsourcing a bi-ennial performance review of the ICANN CEO

Hi,

I share Mikey's concerns about this being a Board-initiated action. I tend to also agree that the AC/SO leadership approach is the most suitable one for this endeavour. A little nudge from us to that effect wouldn’t be a bad idea, perhaps in the form of a letter from Jonathan on behalf of the Council, urging the AC/SO leaders to launch a chartering effort for a CCWG to perform this review.

I just don’t see this as a motion that we need a Councillor to make, have it seconded then finally voted on. I’ve only been following Council activities for a couple of years, but I tend to feel that that is not the purpose they’re meant to serve.

Thanks.

Amr

On Mar 1, 2014, at 1:27 PM, Mike O'Connor <mike@haven2.com><mailto:mike@haven2.com>> wrote:

i like the idea of a review by the community.

i was uncomfortable with the motion that John wrote, which a) seemed too GNSO-focused and b) launched a review without first taking some time to describe what the goals/process would be.

i also like the idea of nudging this toward the Board, or some other body that speaks for all the AC/SOs. the trouble i see with that idea is that the Board may very well come back and say

- we already give Fadi performance feedback, why are you coming to us with this?

- we don’t speak for the community, we tend to the larger interests of ICANN

how about this for an alternative approach… what if Jonathan and the other AC/SO leaders put together their own “Montevideo Statement” (after consultation with their respective gangs) that assessed their view of the current situation and, among other things, called for the chartering and launch of such a review, independent of the Board?

this reminds me a bit of the climate that led to the creation of the DSSA — which was consciously chartered as a CCWG. the Board eventually screwed the DSSA up, but we got a lot done until they did. maybe we wire this one up a little more tightly, to avoid Board meddling this time around.

mikey

On Mar 1, 2014, at 4:51 AM, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info><mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>> wrote:

Perhaps me too.

Persuasive input.

Thanks Avri

On 1 Mar 2014 10:15, "Avri Doria" <avri@acm.org><mailto:avri@acm.org>> wrote:

On 01-Mar-14 10:33, Avri Doria wrote:

Hi,

I have been informed that sometimes my first reaction can be harsh. This is a failing I have spent many years trying to reform, since once I hear the other sides of an issue, my perception frequently softens a wee bit and even .

Saw the incomplete sentence:

and even causes me to change my mind on occasion.

Unfortunately sometimes I type more quickly than I self-repress and I am grateful for the intervention of friends who warm me when my harshness threshold goes too high.

This makes me think that perhaps you are right and this is a good pilot of the newly recommended modality. It would be helpful to see how this mechanism could work on issues in a community such as ours.

I would be interested in possibly seconding a motion, if we can phrase it in the form of a request that the ICANN board initiate such an exercise. Perhaps they could even request that Beth, or some from her branded institute for which we have seen multiple notices, lead us in the activity to show us how it is done. Of course, the board would not be bound by the outcome, but if they initiated the process, they might at least consider it as seriously as they consider the panoply of other advisory panel recommendations.

I think the exercise may be rather important in that it is only the most active of voices that we hear on the subject of our leadership. And whether we love Fadi or not as our leader, or even believe we need a leader of his caliber and vision, it is a topic where we need to hear the broader voice of the community before we know whether the community favors an extended mandate.

Thanks you for suggesting this, and apologies for my initial pooh-poohing.

avri

On 21-Feb-14 17:21, john@crediblecontext.com<mailto:john@crediblecontext.com> wrote: Avri, Note my earlier email. It may be that no one will hear, but that does not mean we should not ask. Berard

--------- Original Message --------- Subject: Re: [council] Crowdsourcing a bi-ennial performance review of the ICANN CEO From: "Avri Doria" <avri@acm.org><mailto:avri@acm.org>> Date: 2/21/14 3:31 am To: "Council" <council@gnso.icann.org><mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>>

Hi,

Interesting idea, but what makes you think anyone on the Board would care what the crowd had to say. They barely care about what the duly constituted SOs, ACs or Review Teams have to say beyond what the by-laws force them to care about.

Now, if we can get National government ministers to crowd source the review, maybe there is a chance they will pay attention.

avri

On 20-Feb-14 22:11, john@crediblecontext.com<mailto:john@crediblecontext.com> wrote:

...

James, Yes, we should include all, but the ball has to start rolling somewhere. I figure we can do that. Berard

--------- Original Message --------- Subject: Re: [council] Crowdsourcing a bi-ennial performance review of the ICANN CEO From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com><mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>> Date: 2/20/14 1:01 pm To: "Mike O'Connor" <mike@haven2.com><mailto:mike@haven2.com>>, "John Berard" <john@crediblecontext.com><mailto:john@crediblecontext.com>> Cc: "Council" <council@gnso.icann.org><mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>>

Also think this is worth of discussion, but should include other SO/ACs in an effort to provide a “360” review. J. From: Mike O'Connor <mike@haven2.com><mailto:mike@haven2.com> ><mailto:mike@haven2.com><mailto:mike@haven2.com>>> Date: Thursday, February 20, 2014 at 13:35 To: John Berard <john@crediblecontext.com><mailto:john@crediblecontext.com> <mailto:john@crediblecontext.com><mailto:john@crediblecontext.com>>> Cc: GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org><mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> <mailto:council@gnso.icann.org><mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>>> Subject: Re: [council] Crowdsourcing a bi-ennial performance review of the ICANN CEO hi John, i sense a certain irony in your reference to crowdsourcing, but i went ahead and circulated your proposal amongst the ISPCP — initial reactions are positive. i personally think it’s a great idea. mikey

On Feb 20, 2014, at 10:28 AM, john@crediblecontext.com<mailto:john@crediblecontext.com> <mailto:john@crediblecontext.com><mailto:john@crediblecontext.com>> wrote:

All, I think the next meeting of the ICANN, scheduled for London, marks two years of Fadi Chehade's term as the organization's President and CEO. In light of the interest driven by the Strategy Panels in what is called crowd sourcing, I wonder if we should consider instigating a performance review of the executive using that method. We can announce the initiative in Singapore and prepare a report for the London meeting. The standing for the Council is the growing executive influence over policy, looking no further than the rise of appointed strategy panels in lieu of community-based working groups. What is your view? Cheers, Berard

PHONE: 651-647-6109<tel:651-647-6109>, FAX: 866-280-2356<tel:866-280-2356>, WEB: www.haven2.com<http://www.haven2.com/> <http://www.haven2.com><http://www.haven2.com/>>, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)

PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com<http://www.haven2.com/>, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)

El presente correo y cualquier posible archivo adjunto está dirigido únicamente al destinatario del mensaje y contiene información que puede ser confidencial. Si Ud. no es el destinatario correcto por favor notifique al remitente respondiendo anexando este mensaje y elimine inmediatamente el e-mail y los posibles archivos adjuntos al mismo de su sistema. Está prohibida cualquier utilización, difusión o copia de este e-mail por cualquier persona o entidad que no sean las específicas destinatarias del mensaje. ANTEL no acepta ninguna responsabilidad con respecto a cualquier comunicación que haya sido emitida incumpliendo nuestra Política de Seguridad de la Información

This e-mail and any attachment is confidential and is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not intended recipient please inform the sender immediately, answering this e-mail and delete it as well as the attached files. Any use, circulation or copy of this e-mail by any person or entity that is not the specific addressee(s) is prohibited. ANTEL is not responsible for any communication emitted without respecting our Information Security Policy.