GNSO review - the easy wins
Fellow Council Members, You may recall I discussed with some of you in Brazil as well as with staff the idea of seeing if there were some of the 24 recommendations in the LSE GNSO review that were ones that would meet with universal agreement on Council. Having reviewed the list again I would now like to make such a proposal. The attached list of 9 of the 24 recommendations are ones that I am guessing we would all categorise as either: - blindingly obvious to do (eg web site improvement) - seem like a good idea (eg annual policy plan) - what we have been asking for for years (eg funded travel). Indeed many of the items are already in ICANN plans (see list). A kick-start with Council endorsement will be helpful. (The list is NOT the full set of recommendations supported by the BC. That list is longer but we believe that the other recommendations need to be either: - discussed more, - considered together, - considered with the Board governance committee, before we can reach a view as Council). However, small steps are always good to show progress so would you be kind enough to indicate if indeed you DO support this short list of the 9 easy wins ? If there are any items you do not support, just say so with a brief explanation, and I will take them off the list: by definition they would not be easy wins! That should leave us with a set of 9 or less of which we can say Council supports immediate implementation. That will mean in most cases staff do work and return to Council with a worked out proposal. I hope you agree this is a good idea to demonstrate Council's enthusiasm for self-improvement. Philip
On 15-Feb-07, at 4:24 AM, Philip Sheppard wrote:
I hope you agree this is a good idea to demonstrate Council's enthusiasm for self-improvement.
I do not. The LSE report was input for the Board. It is one of many inputs that need to be considered, including that of the GNSO itself, the larger community, etc. We do not yet know how the board will consider these inputs. I don't think its prudent to chase down anything without understanding what the board objectives and priorities are. We already know that the Board Governance committee has formulated a plan to pursue this work, specifically; "...the Board Governance committee had on its agenda for final approval, a process for GNSO improvements that entailed creating a joint Board-GNSO working group to consider the recommendations raised in the Patrick Sharry Council Review, the LSE review and other input from the GNSO and the public to develop specific recommendations to be considered by the ICANN Board." (Denise Michel, Nov. 16 Council meeting, http:// gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-16nov06.shtml" Why would we want to purposely work outside this process? We have too many "shiny objects" we're chasing as it is. Some restraint in terms of what we focus on and what we don't is in order. It is premature to undertake this work in a piecemeal manner. While you may be "reluctant to give the neophytes a scalpel", running off in our own direction with the full knowledge that the Board is about to implement a complete process to help us implement a set of recommendations that we broadly agree to (with the support of the larger community) sounds incredibly counter-productive. If anything, now is the time to demonstrate our enthusiasm for working *with* the Board and community and not against it. I also think its time to pack up any paranoia you may have about who gets the scalpel and what their level of experience is and focus on taking a much more positive view of the situation and environment. Your rhetoric is polarizing an divisive. It politicizes the process and will not lead to a productive or positive outcome. Ross Rader Director, Retail Services t. 416.538.5492 c. 416.828.8783 http://www.domaindirect.com "To solve the problems of today, we must focus on tomorrow." - Erik Nupponen
Hello Ross, having a good day I see. Why do you think I am avoiding the Board governance committee? I talked explicitly about co-operating with them. If you require an ABC on process, I foresee this short list as Council's initial INPUT to the Board committee. Would they not like a set of easy wins too ? Of course if you are to irate to bother just let us all know and I'll make a note in my diary to revisit this issue in the year 2018 when we can check to see if you have calmed down. Philip
On 15-Feb-07, at 9:13 AM, Philip Sheppard wrote:
Hello Ross, having a good day I see. Why do you think I am avoiding the Board governance committee? I talked explicitly about co-operating with them. If you require an ABC on process, I foresee this short list as Council's initial INPUT to the Board committee. Would they not like a set of easy wins too ?
Of course if you are to irate to bother just let us all know and I'll make a note in my diary to revisit this issue in the year 2018 when we can check to see if you have calmed down.
Philip - I am having an excellent day. I am not sure why you've characterized my response to your request as an emotional reaction, but it is consistent with your historical rhetoric so I guess I should be used to it by now. As far as I can tell, your proposal is to take a subset of the issues raised by the LSE report and act on them immediately, net of any influence outside of council. I don't think its wise to "guess" what the BGC is looking for as you propose, nor do I think its wise to pursue any action items on reform until we have a better understanding of the context in which we're pursuing those actions. Even something seemingly straightforward like implementing a travel policy for council presumes a) that there will be a council post-reform, b) that travel will be required in the context of the PDP, c) that the work of the council merits funding in a post-reform GNSO, etc., etc., etc. There is no work for the Council coming out of the LSE report until the Board brings us into the process. Why the rush here Philip? Might it not make more sense to focus on the work we do have in front of us? For instance, implementing some of the recommendations from the Sharry report? I realize that those are at least two years old and lack some of the glamor and shine of the LSE report, but at least the process is complete and the capability to implement fully under our control. Ross Rader Director, Retail Services t. 416.538.5492 c. 416.828.8783 http://www.domaindirect.com "To solve the problems of today, we must focus on tomorrow." - Erik Nupponen
Ross wrote: "As far as I can tell, your proposal is to take a subset of the issues raised by the LSE report and act on them immediately, net of any influence outside of council". This is entirely wrong. The idea is to propose to the Board Governance Committee that we act jointly on this subset now. How often do I need to repeat my commitment to moving co-operatively forward? Ross you mention the Sharry report .....ah yes there lies a set of good ideas sacrificed on the altar of patience. Philip
Philip, I think this is an eminently reasonable and useful approach. Thanks for taking the initiative. Greg --- Philip Sheppard <philip.sheppard@aim.be> wrote:
Fellow Council Members, You may recall I discussed with some of you in Brazil as well as with staff the idea of seeing if there were some of the 24 recommendations in the LSE GNSO review that were ones that would meet with universal agreement on Council. Having reviewed the list again I would now like to make such a proposal. The attached list of 9 of the 24 recommendations are ones that I am guessing we would all categorise as either: - blindingly obvious to do (eg web site improvement) - seem like a good idea (eg annual policy plan) - what we have been asking for for years (eg funded travel). Indeed many of the items are already in ICANN plans (see list). A kick-start with Council endorsement will be helpful.
(The list is NOT the full set of recommendations supported by the BC. That list is longer but we believe that the other recommendations need to be either: - discussed more, - considered together, - considered with the Board governance committee, before we can reach a view as Council).
However, small steps are always good to show progress so would you be kind enough to indicate if indeed you DO support this short list of the 9 easy wins ? If there are any items you do not support, just say so with a brief explanation, and I will take them off the list: by definition they would not be easy wins!
That should leave us with a set of 9 or less of which we can say Council supports immediate implementation. That will mean in most cases staff do work and return to Council with a worked out proposal.
I hope you agree this is a good idea to demonstrate Council's enthusiasm for self-improvement.
Philip
____________________________________________________________________________________ Don't get soaked. Take a quick peak at the forecast with the Yahoo! Search weather shortcut. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#loc_weather
In the attached document I added a column that contains my comments for each of the 9 recommendations that Philip listed as possible easy targets for improvement. I picked 3 of the 9 that I personally believe fit that category: 7) Website improvement; 8) better document management; and 14) better project management methods. I suggest for each of these cases that we first "ask staff to clarify what plans may already be in place" for these goals. With the other six recommendations, I provide reasons why I do not believe that they will be that easy, are more controversial than some think, may not be implementable until late this year or early next year, or would be better reviewed in the context of the fuller GNSO improvements that hopefully will come out of the overall GNSO improvements as Ross suggested. Chuck Gomes "This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify sender immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission." ________________________________ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 4:25 AM To: 'GNSO Council' Subject: [council] GNSO review - the easy wins Fellow Council Members, You may recall I discussed with some of you in Brazil as well as with staff the idea of seeing if there were some of the 24 recommendations in the LSE GNSO review that were ones that would meet with universal agreement on Council. Having reviewed the list again I would now like to make such a proposal. The attached list of 9 of the 24 recommendations are ones that I am guessing we would all categorise as either: - blindingly obvious to do (eg web site improvement) - seem like a good idea (eg annual policy plan) - what we have been asking for for years (eg funded travel). Indeed many of the items are already in ICANN plans (see list). A kick-start with Council endorsement will be helpful. (The list is NOT the full set of recommendations supported by the BC. That list is longer but we believe that the other recommendations need to be either: - discussed more, - considered together, - considered with the Board governance committee, before we can reach a view as Council). However, small steps are always good to show progress so would you be kind enough to indicate if indeed you DO support this short list of the 9 easy wins ? If there are any items you do not support, just say so with a brief explanation, and I will take them off the list: by definition they would not be easy wins! That should leave us with a set of 9 or less of which we can say Council supports immediate implementation. That will mean in most cases staff do work and return to Council with a worked out proposal. I hope you agree this is a good idea to demonstrate Council's enthusiasm for self-improvement. Philip
participants (4)
-
Gomes, Chuck -
Greg Ruth -
Philip Sheppard -
Ross Rader