RE: EXTENSION OF DEADLINE - Call for Applicants for a Position of Volunteer Review Team Member - 29 July 2010
With the exception of the request that applications be submitted by Monday which has since been withdrawn and with the condition that I see the actual wording of the letter and have opportunity to suggest edits, I see no reason why I could not sign the letter. I do believe we need to make at least two points in addition to what Marilyn suggests: 1) A change such as this extension where the deadline impacts time sensitive processes of any of the organizations must receive affirmative support from those organizations before it is done; 2) In the case of the GNSO, it is totally inappropriate for the GNSO to be asked to compromise a process that it has designed to be as bottom-up as possible in a compressed timeframe without input from the GNSO. Chuck From: Marilyn Cade [mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, July 16, 2010 8:19 AM To: Wolf Knoben; Tony Holmes; Gomes, Chuck; glen@icann.org; liaison6c@gnso.icann.org; Steve Metalitz; cdigangi@inta.org; sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com; Harris, Anthony; excomm@bizconst.org Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: EXTENSION OF DEADLINE - Call for Applicants for a Position of Volunteer Review Team Member - 29 July 2010 Dear Colleagues I am disquieted by the confusion introduced by ICANN into the RT processes. It was undoubtedly well meaning, but has disrupted already stressed processes. I would think that it would be clear to ICANN's senior leadership and Board, and staff that fulfilling, with excellence, the AoC, and related Review Team processes, is incredibly important and significant to ICANN's credibility. I spoke at the public forum at Brussels that the "AOC document was heard around the world". and I meant that. The work of the RTs is an underpinning to implementing an accountable and responsible ICANN that is built upon self review, and self correction, where needed. The community [meaning all of us] is struggling with its own work loads, and its own day to day challenges of delivering services, products, or just 'running the Internet'. Or being users of the Internet, and relying on the DNS, or other functions that ICANN is coordinating. The amount of pro bono contributions of time and resources from all stakeholders into ICANN is phenomenal, and is what makes ICANN work, and supports its success. It is challenging to tell that ICANN itself fully understands how to work with the fuller community, or quite has a grasp on how the organization should support the work of the community, who after all, are ICANN. I do not consider any stakeholder a 'volunteer', since standards organizations and associations and NGOs do not consider the work of their communities 'voluntary'. They survive because of that work and active involvement of the community, supported by staff at all levels, and by a Board that respects the value of broad, strong, diverse community support. Having said all that, I am disappointed, like all of you about the confusion that has been introduced into the process. I do not want to dwell on that, OR waste time in chastisement or arguments. Let's try to accept that this is a 'pilot' approach to developing the RTS, insist that there be an end of year discussion, which we should contribute to, if not drive, on how such processes will work within this SO, collaborate with our colleagues in other SOs and ACs, and be 'better' in 2011. How about a solution? Or at least an approach: I had a call with Chuck Gomes last night, and want to thank him for his time. I am going to encourage the business community to submit their nominations on Monday. I cannot guarantee that 'works', since the business wide community is not necessarily following the machinations of the ICANN processes, ever "winding" as they are now. And, I must have taken my role as CSG alternate/BC Chair too seriously, and promptly widely distributed the extension. Extensions are in general good things, and I know that busy people welcomed the notice. However, Wolf, as usual, is offering a sane proposal. BUT, we need to ask for a consistent treatment. We can't have different rules for different stakeholders. I propose that we 1) cajole the community to submit by Monday, noting that there is an ICANN announced extension but that in our leadership capacities within the GNSO, we urge submissions by Monday: 2) jointly send a letter to the selectors, copied to full Board, noting that the announcement[of extension introduced confusion; noting that there remains a strong commitment on the part of the GNSO community that the number of reps to the RT should be a minimum of 4 from GNSO, cite the reasons there [work load; diversity; broadened perspectives; respect for the bottom up and diverse nature of the GNSO community]; and note that we can only function with an extension that is equally applied to all RT nominees. I would propose that the Council's chair sign it; Chairs of constituencies should sign it. Send it Monday. Copy full Board, and Chair of GAC. I have copied the BC Executive Committee on this email. I do not have posting privileges to the Council. Marilyn Cade BC Chair
To my knowledge, which may be limited, there is no precedent nor reason for the Council chair to be taking input from Constituency chairs, as opposed to Councilors. If a letter is contemplated to come from the Council chair, then this discussion needs to happen on the Council list. Personally speaking, I don't see this as a high priority for Council or the Council chair to be addressing on such a 'rush' basis. I haven't noted any more than two members of the BC stating this is a significant issue, either. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1 (415) 738-8087 <http://rodenbaugh.com/> http://rodenbaugh.com From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Friday, July 16, 2010 7:04 AM To: Marilyn Cade; Wolf Knoben; Tony Holmes; glen@icann.org; liaison6c@gnso.icann.org; Steve Metalitz; cdigangi@inta.org; sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com; Harris, Anthony; excomm@bizconst.org Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] RE: EXTENSION OF DEADLINE - Call for Applicants for a Position of Volunteer Review Team Member - 29 July 2010 With the exception of the request that applications be submitted by Monday which has since been withdrawn and with the condition that I see the actual wording of the letter and have opportunity to suggest edits, I see no reason why I could not sign the letter. I do believe we need to make at least two points in addition to what Marilyn suggests: 1) A change such as this extension where the deadline impacts time sensitive processes of any of the organizations must receive affirmative support from those organizations before it is done; 2) In the case of the GNSO, it is totally inappropriate for the GNSO to be asked to compromise a process that it has designed to be as bottom-up as possible in a compressed timeframe without input from the GNSO. Chuck From: Marilyn Cade [mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, July 16, 2010 8:19 AM To: Wolf Knoben; Tony Holmes; Gomes, Chuck; glen@icann.org; liaison6c@gnso.icann.org; Steve Metalitz; cdigangi@inta.org; sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com; Harris, Anthony; excomm@bizconst.org Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: EXTENSION OF DEADLINE - Call for Applicants for a Position of Volunteer Review Team Member - 29 July 2010 Dear Colleagues I am disquieted by the confusion introduced by ICANN into the RT processes. It was undoubtedly well meaning, but has disrupted already stressed processes. I would think that it would be clear to ICANN's senior leadership and Board, and staff that fulfilling, with excellence, the AoC, and related Review Team processes, is incredibly important and significant to ICANN's credibility. I spoke at the public forum at Brussels that the "AOC document was heard around the world". and I meant that. The work of the RTs is an underpinning to implementing an accountable and responsible ICANN that is built upon self review, and self correction, where needed. The community [meaning all of us] is struggling with its own work loads, and its own day to day challenges of delivering services, products, or just 'running the Internet'. Or being users of the Internet, and relying on the DNS, or other functions that ICANN is coordinating. The amount of pro bono contributions of time and resources from all stakeholders into ICANN is phenomenal, and is what makes ICANN work, and supports its success. It is challenging to tell that ICANN itself fully understands how to work with the fuller community, or quite has a grasp on how the organization should support the work of the community, who after all, are ICANN. I do not consider any stakeholder a 'volunteer', since standards organizations and associations and NGOs do not consider the work of their communities 'voluntary'. They survive because of that work and active involvement of the community, supported by staff at all levels, and by a Board that respects the value of broad, strong, diverse community support. Having said all that, I am disappointed, like all of you about the confusion that has been introduced into the process. I do not want to dwell on that, OR waste time in chastisement or arguments. Let's try to accept that this is a 'pilot' approach to developing the RTS, insist that there be an end of year discussion, which we should contribute to, if not drive, on how such processes will work within this SO, collaborate with our colleagues in other SOs and ACs, and be 'better' in 2011. How about a solution? Or at least an approach: I had a call with Chuck Gomes last night, and want to thank him for his time. I am going to encourage the business community to submit their nominations on Monday. I cannot guarantee that 'works', since the business wide community is not necessarily following the machinations of the ICANN processes, ever "winding" as they are now. And, I must have taken my role as CSG alternate/BC Chair too seriously, and promptly widely distributed the extension. Extensions are in general good things, and I know that busy people welcomed the notice. However, Wolf, as usual, is offering a sane proposal. BUT, we need to ask for a consistent treatment. We can't have different rules for different stakeholders. I propose that we 1) cajole the community to submit by Monday, noting that there is an ICANN announced extension but that in our leadership capacities within the GNSO, we urge submissions by Monday: 2) jointly send a letter to the selectors, copied to full Board, noting that the announcement[of extension introduced confusion; noting that there remains a strong commitment on the part of the GNSO community that the number of reps to the RT should be a minimum of 4 from GNSO, cite the reasons there [work load; diversity; broadened perspectives; respect for the bottom up and diverse nature of the GNSO community]; and note that we can only function with an extension that is equally applied to all RT nominees. I would propose that the Council's chair sign it; Chairs of constituencies should sign it. Send it Monday. Copy full Board, and Chair of GAC. I have copied the BC Executive Committee on this email. I do not have posting privileges to the Council. Marilyn Cade BC Chair
Mike, Let me make sure I understand what you are saying. Do you oppose me signing such a letter as Council Chair? Chuck From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com] Sent: Friday, July 16, 2010 11:08 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; 'Marilyn Cade'; 'Wolf Knoben'; 'Tony Holmes'; glen@icann.org; liaison6c@gnso.icann.org; 'Steve Metalitz'; cdigangi@inta.org; sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com; Harris, Anthony; excomm@bizconst.org Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] RE: EXTENSION OF DEADLINE - Call for Applicants for a Position of Volunteer Review Team Member - 29 July 2010 To my knowledge, which may be limited, there is no precedent nor reason for the Council chair to be taking input from Constituency chairs, as opposed to Councilors. If a letter is contemplated to come from the Council chair, then this discussion needs to happen on the Council list. Personally speaking, I don't see this as a high priority for Council or the Council chair to be addressing on such a 'rush' basis. I haven't noted any more than two members of the BC stating this is a significant issue, either. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1 (415) 738-8087 http://rodenbaugh.com <http://rodenbaugh.com/> From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Friday, July 16, 2010 7:04 AM To: Marilyn Cade; Wolf Knoben; Tony Holmes; glen@icann.org; liaison6c@gnso.icann.org; Steve Metalitz; cdigangi@inta.org; sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com; Harris, Anthony; excomm@bizconst.org Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] RE: EXTENSION OF DEADLINE - Call for Applicants for a Position of Volunteer Review Team Member - 29 July 2010 With the exception of the request that applications be submitted by Monday which has since been withdrawn and with the condition that I see the actual wording of the letter and have opportunity to suggest edits, I see no reason why I could not sign the letter. I do believe we need to make at least two points in addition to what Marilyn suggests: 1) A change such as this extension where the deadline impacts time sensitive processes of any of the organizations must receive affirmative support from those organizations before it is done; 2) In the case of the GNSO, it is totally inappropriate for the GNSO to be asked to compromise a process that it has designed to be as bottom-up as possible in a compressed timeframe without input from the GNSO. Chuck From: Marilyn Cade [mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, July 16, 2010 8:19 AM To: Wolf Knoben; Tony Holmes; Gomes, Chuck; glen@icann.org; liaison6c@gnso.icann.org; Steve Metalitz; cdigangi@inta.org; sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com; Harris, Anthony; excomm@bizconst.org Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: EXTENSION OF DEADLINE - Call for Applicants for a Position of Volunteer Review Team Member - 29 July 2010 Dear Colleagues I am disquieted by the confusion introduced by ICANN into the RT processes. It was undoubtedly well meaning, but has disrupted already stressed processes. I would think that it would be clear to ICANN's senior leadership and Board, and staff that fulfilling, with excellence, the AoC, and related Review Team processes, is incredibly important and significant to ICANN's credibility. I spoke at the public forum at Brussels that the "AOC document was heard around the world". and I meant that. The work of the RTs is an underpinning to implementing an accountable and responsible ICANN that is built upon self review, and self correction, where needed. The community [meaning all of us] is struggling with its own work loads, and its own day to day challenges of delivering services, products, or just 'running the Internet'. Or being users of the Internet, and relying on the DNS, or other functions that ICANN is coordinating. The amount of pro bono contributions of time and resources from all stakeholders into ICANN is phenomenal, and is what makes ICANN work, and supports its success. It is challenging to tell that ICANN itself fully understands how to work with the fuller community, or quite has a grasp on how the organization should support the work of the community, who after all, are ICANN. I do not consider any stakeholder a 'volunteer', since standards organizations and associations and NGOs do not consider the work of their communities 'voluntary'. They survive because of that work and active involvement of the community, supported by staff at all levels, and by a Board that respects the value of broad, strong, diverse community support. Having said all that, I am disappointed, like all of you about the confusion that has been introduced into the process. I do not want to dwell on that, OR waste time in chastisement or arguments. Let's try to accept that this is a 'pilot' approach to developing the RTS, insist that there be an end of year discussion, which we should contribute to, if not drive, on how such processes will work within this SO, collaborate with our colleagues in other SOs and ACs, and be 'better' in 2011. How about a solution? Or at least an approach: I had a call with Chuck Gomes last night, and want to thank him for his time. I am going to encourage the business community to submit their nominations on Monday. I cannot guarantee that 'works', since the business wide community is not necessarily following the machinations of the ICANN processes, ever "winding" as they are now. And, I must have taken my role as CSG alternate/BC Chair too seriously, and promptly widely distributed the extension. Extensions are in general good things, and I know that busy people welcomed the notice. However, Wolf, as usual, is offering a sane proposal. BUT, we need to ask for a consistent treatment. We can't have different rules for different stakeholders. I propose that we 1) cajole the community to submit by Monday, noting that there is an ICANN announced extension but that in our leadership capacities within the GNSO, we urge submissions by Monday: 2) jointly send a letter to the selectors, copied to full Board, noting that the announcement[of extension introduced confusion; noting that there remains a strong commitment on the part of the GNSO community that the number of reps to the RT should be a minimum of 4 from GNSO, cite the reasons there [work load; diversity; broadened perspectives; respect for the bottom up and diverse nature of the GNSO community]; and note that we can only function with an extension that is equally applied to all RT nominees. I would propose that the Council's chair sign it; Chairs of constituencies should sign it. Send it Monday. Copy full Board, and Chair of GAC. I have copied the BC Executive Committee on this email. I do not have posting privileges to the Council. Marilyn Cade BC Chair
Chuck, I would need to see the letter, as would every other Councilor asked to give their opinion about it. Frankly I am opposed to this discussion at all, as it is a waste of time for the entire Council. Constituencies should deal with the schedule that's been set, or complain on their own, rather than involve the Council in a debate over how/whether to complain about it. That debate that has nothing to do with the Council's role in ICANN's policy development process. Also I am concerned about the mixed involvement of Constituency chairs and Council chair on this or any issue. Councilors are the elected representatives to the Council from the Constituencies. If the Council Chair seeks input from the Constituencies, it should come through the Councilors. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1 (415) 738-8087 http://rodenbaugh.com <http://rodenbaugh.com/> From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Sent: Friday, July 16, 2010 8:11 AM To: icann@rodenbaugh.com; Marilyn Cade; Wolf Knoben; Tony Holmes; glen@icann.org; liaison6c@gnso.icann.org; Steve Metalitz; cdigangi@inta.org; sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com; Harris, Anthony; excomm@bizconst.org Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] RE: EXTENSION OF DEADLINE - Call for Applicants for a Position of Volunteer Review Team Member - 29 July 2010 Mike, Let me make sure I understand what you are saying. Do you oppose me signing such a letter as Council Chair? Chuck From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com] Sent: Friday, July 16, 2010 11:08 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; 'Marilyn Cade'; 'Wolf Knoben'; 'Tony Holmes'; glen@icann.org; liaison6c@gnso.icann.org; 'Steve Metalitz'; cdigangi@inta.org; sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com; Harris, Anthony; excomm@bizconst.org Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] RE: EXTENSION OF DEADLINE - Call for Applicants for a Position of Volunteer Review Team Member - 29 July 2010 To my knowledge, which may be limited, there is no precedent nor reason for the Council chair to be taking input from Constituency chairs, as opposed to Councilors. If a letter is contemplated to come from the Council chair, then this discussion needs to happen on the Council list. Personally speaking, I don't see this as a high priority for Council or the Council chair to be addressing on such a 'rush' basis. I haven't noted any more than two members of the BC stating this is a significant issue, either. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1 (415) 738-8087 http://rodenbaugh.com <http://rodenbaugh.com/> From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Friday, July 16, 2010 7:04 AM To: Marilyn Cade; Wolf Knoben; Tony Holmes; glen@icann.org; liaison6c@gnso.icann.org; Steve Metalitz; cdigangi@inta.org; sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com; Harris, Anthony; excomm@bizconst.org Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] RE: EXTENSION OF DEADLINE - Call for Applicants for a Position of Volunteer Review Team Member - 29 July 2010 With the exception of the request that applications be submitted by Monday which has since been withdrawn and with the condition that I see the actual wording of the letter and have opportunity to suggest edits, I see no reason why I could not sign the letter. I do believe we need to make at least two points in addition to what Marilyn suggests: 1) A change such as this extension where the deadline impacts time sensitive processes of any of the organizations must receive affirmative support from those organizations before it is done; 2) In the case of the GNSO, it is totally inappropriate for the GNSO to be asked to compromise a process that it has designed to be as bottom-up as possible in a compressed timeframe without input from the GNSO. Chuck From: Marilyn Cade [mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, July 16, 2010 8:19 AM To: Wolf Knoben; Tony Holmes; Gomes, Chuck; glen@icann.org; liaison6c@gnso.icann.org; Steve Metalitz; cdigangi@inta.org; sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com; Harris, Anthony; excomm@bizconst.org Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: EXTENSION OF DEADLINE - Call for Applicants for a Position of Volunteer Review Team Member - 29 July 2010 Dear Colleagues I am disquieted by the confusion introduced by ICANN into the RT processes. It was undoubtedly well meaning, but has disrupted already stressed processes. I would think that it would be clear to ICANN's senior leadership and Board, and staff that fulfilling, with excellence, the AoC, and related Review Team processes, is incredibly important and significant to ICANN's credibility. I spoke at the public forum at Brussels that the "AOC document was heard around the world". and I meant that. The work of the RTs is an underpinning to implementing an accountable and responsible ICANN that is built upon self review, and self correction, where needed. The community [meaning all of us] is struggling with its own work loads, and its own day to day challenges of delivering services, products, or just 'running the Internet'. Or being users of the Internet, and relying on the DNS, or other functions that ICANN is coordinating. The amount of pro bono contributions of time and resources from all stakeholders into ICANN is phenomenal, and is what makes ICANN work, and supports its success. It is challenging to tell that ICANN itself fully understands how to work with the fuller community, or quite has a grasp on how the organization should support the work of the community, who after all, are ICANN. I do not consider any stakeholder a 'volunteer', since standards organizations and associations and NGOs do not consider the work of their communities 'voluntary'. They survive because of that work and active involvement of the community, supported by staff at all levels, and by a Board that respects the value of broad, strong, diverse community support. Having said all that, I am disappointed, like all of you about the confusion that has been introduced into the process. I do not want to dwell on that, OR waste time in chastisement or arguments. Let's try to accept that this is a 'pilot' approach to developing the RTS, insist that there be an end of year discussion, which we should contribute to, if not drive, on how such processes will work within this SO, collaborate with our colleagues in other SOs and ACs, and be 'better' in 2011. How about a solution? Or at least an approach: I had a call with Chuck Gomes last night, and want to thank him for his time. I am going to encourage the business community to submit their nominations on Monday. I cannot guarantee that 'works', since the business wide community is not necessarily following the machinations of the ICANN processes, ever "winding" as they are now. And, I must have taken my role as CSG alternate/BC Chair too seriously, and promptly widely distributed the extension. Extensions are in general good things, and I know that busy people welcomed the notice. However, Wolf, as usual, is offering a sane proposal. BUT, we need to ask for a consistent treatment. We can't have different rules for different stakeholders. I propose that we 1) cajole the community to submit by Monday, noting that there is an ICANN announced extension but that in our leadership capacities within the GNSO, we urge submissions by Monday: 2) jointly send a letter to the selectors, copied to full Board, noting that the announcement[of extension introduced confusion; noting that there remains a strong commitment on the part of the GNSO community that the number of reps to the RT should be a minimum of 4 from GNSO, cite the reasons there [work load; diversity; broadened perspectives; respect for the bottom up and diverse nature of the GNSO community]; and note that we can only function with an extension that is equally applied to all RT nominees. I would propose that the Council's chair sign it; Chairs of constituencies should sign it. Send it Monday. Copy full Board, and Chair of GAC. I have copied the BC Executive Committee on this email. I do not have posting privileges to the Council. Marilyn Cade BC Chair
Cuck We are making such a fuzz about this issue! Its not policy making. Its not even politics, at least the politics of opposing ideas and interests. Its about who has the power to fix or change a schedule. Or even worse: who has the power to ask the selectors to change the schedule. BTW, I dont oppose you signing the letter. Jaime Wagner CGI (Comitê Gestor da Internet no Brasil) Representante dos Provedores de Acesso e Conteúdo jaime <mailto:jaime@corp.plugin.com.br> @cgi.br <mailto:jaime@cgi.br> (51)8126-0916 j.w@gner.net.br De: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Em nome de Gomes, Chuck Enviada em: sexta-feira, 16 de julho de 2010 12:11 Para: icann@rodenbaugh.com; Marilyn Cade; Wolf Knoben; Tony Holmes; glen@icann.org; liaison6c@gnso.icann.org; Steve Metalitz; cdigangi@inta.org; sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com; Harris, Anthony; excomm@bizconst.org Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Assunto: RE: [council] RE: EXTENSION OF DEADLINE - Call for Applicants for a Position of Volunteer Review Team Member - 29 July 2010 Mike, Let me make sure I understand what you are saying. Do you oppose me signing such a letter as Council Chair? Chuck From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com] Sent: Friday, July 16, 2010 11:08 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; 'Marilyn Cade'; 'Wolf Knoben'; 'Tony Holmes'; glen@icann.org; liaison6c@gnso.icann.org; 'Steve Metalitz'; cdigangi@inta.org; sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com; Harris, Anthony; excomm@bizconst.org Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] RE: EXTENSION OF DEADLINE - Call for Applicants for a Position of Volunteer Review Team Member - 29 July 2010 To my knowledge, which may be limited, there is no precedent nor reason for the Council chair to be taking input from Constituency chairs, as opposed to Councilors. If a letter is contemplated to come from the Council chair, then this discussion needs to happen on the Council list. Personally speaking, I dont see this as a high priority for Council or the Council chair to be addressing on such a rush basis. I havent noted any more than two members of the BC stating this is a significant issue, either. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1 (415) 738-8087 http://rodenbaugh.com <http://rodenbaugh.com/> From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Friday, July 16, 2010 7:04 AM To: Marilyn Cade; Wolf Knoben; Tony Holmes; glen@icann.org; liaison6c@gnso.icann.org; Steve Metalitz; cdigangi@inta.org; sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com; Harris, Anthony; excomm@bizconst.org Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] RE: EXTENSION OF DEADLINE - Call for Applicants for a Position of Volunteer Review Team Member - 29 July 2010 With the exception of the request that applications be submitted by Monday which has since been withdrawn and with the condition that I see the actual wording of the letter and have opportunity to suggest edits, I see no reason why I could not sign the letter. I do believe we need to make at least two points in addition to what Marilyn suggests: 1) A change such as this extension where the deadline impacts time sensitive processes of any of the organizations must receive affirmative support from those organizations before it is done; 2) In the case of the GNSO, it is totally inappropriate for the GNSO to be asked to compromise a process that it has designed to be as bottom-up as possible in a compressed timeframe without input from the GNSO. Chuck From: Marilyn Cade [mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, July 16, 2010 8:19 AM To: Wolf Knoben; Tony Holmes; Gomes, Chuck; glen@icann.org; liaison6c@gnso.icann.org; Steve Metalitz; cdigangi@inta.org; sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com; Harris, Anthony; excomm@bizconst.org Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: EXTENSION OF DEADLINE - Call for Applicants for a Position of Volunteer Review Team Member - 29 July 2010 Dear Colleagues I am disquieted by the confusion introduced by ICANN into the RT processes. It was undoubtedly well meaning, but has disrupted already stressed processes. I would think that it would be clear to ICANN's senior leadership and Board, and staff that fulfilling, with excellence, the AoC, and related Review Team processes, is incredibly important and significant to ICANN's credibility. I spoke at the public forum at Brussels that the "AOC document was heard around the world". and I meant that. The work of the RTs is an underpinning to implementing an accountable and responsible ICANN that is built upon self review, and self correction, where needed. The community [meaning all of us] is struggling with its own work loads, and its own day to day challenges of delivering services, products, or just 'running the Internet'. Or being users of the Internet, and relying on the DNS, or other functions that ICANN is coordinating. The amount of pro bono contributions of time and resources from all stakeholders into ICANN is phenomenal, and is what makes ICANN work, and supports its success. It is challenging to tell that ICANN itself fully understands how to work with the fuller community, or quite has a grasp on how the organization should support the work of the community, who after all, are ICANN. I do not consider any stakeholder a 'volunteer', since standards organizations and associations and NGOs do not consider the work of their communities 'voluntary'. They survive because of that work and active involvement of the community, supported by staff at all levels, and by a Board that respects the value of broad, strong, diverse community support. Having said all that, I am disappointed, like all of you about the confusion that has been introduced into the process. I do not want to dwell on that, OR waste time in chastisement or arguments. Let's try to accept that this is a 'pilot' approach to developing the RTS, insist that there be an end of year discussion, which we should contribute to, if not drive, on how such processes will work within this SO, collaborate with our colleagues in other SOs and ACs, and be 'better' in 2011. How about a solution? Or at least an approach: I had a call with Chuck Gomes last night, and want to thank him for his time. I am going to encourage the business community to submit their nominations on Monday. I cannot guarantee that 'works', since the business wide community is not necessarily following the machinations of the ICANN processes, ever "winding" as they are now. And, I must have taken my role as CSG alternate/BC Chair too seriously, and promptly widely distributed the extension. Extensions are in general good things, and I know that busy people welcomed the notice. However, Wolf, as usual, is offering a sane proposal. BUT, we need to ask for a consistent treatment. We can't have different rules for different stakeholders. I propose that we 1) cajole the community to submit by Monday, noting that there is an ICANN announced extension but that in our leadership capacities within the GNSO, we urge submissions by Monday: 2) jointly send a letter to the selectors, copied to full Board, noting that the announcement[of extension introduced confusion; noting that there remains a strong commitment on the part of the GNSO community that the number of reps to the RT should be a minimum of 4 from GNSO, cite the reasons there [work load; diversity; broadened perspectives; respect for the bottom up and diverse nature of the GNSO community]; and note that we can only function with an extension that is equally applied to all RT nominees. I would propose that the Council's chair sign it; Chairs of constituencies should sign it. Send it Monday. Copy full Board, and Chair of GAC. I have copied the BC Executive Committee on this email. I do not have posting privileges to the Council. Marilyn Cade BC Chair
I agree with Jaime and others that this is much ado about nothing. Stéphane Le 16 juil. 2010 à 23:12, Jaime Wagner - CGI a écrit :
Cuck
We are making such a fuzz about this issue! It’s not policy making. It’s not even politics, at least the politics of opposing ideas and interests. It’s about who has the power to fix or change a schedule. Or even worse: who has the power to ask the selectors to change the schedule. BTW, I don’t oppose you signing the letter.
Jaime Wagner CGI (Comitê Gestor da Internet no Brasil) Representante dos Provedores de Acesso e Conteúdo jaime@cgi.br (51)8126-0916 j.w@gner.net.br
De: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Em nome de Gomes, Chuck Enviada em: sexta-feira, 16 de julho de 2010 12:11 Para: icann@rodenbaugh.com; Marilyn Cade; Wolf Knoben; Tony Holmes; glen@icann.org; liaison6c@gnso.icann.org; Steve Metalitz; cdigangi@inta.org;sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com; Harris, Anthony; excomm@bizconst.org Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Assunto: RE: [council] RE: EXTENSION OF DEADLINE - Call for Applicants for a Position of Volunteer Review Team Member - 29 July 2010
Mike,
Let me make sure I understand what you are saying. Do you oppose me signing such a letter as Council Chair?
Chuck
From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com] Sent: Friday, July 16, 2010 11:08 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; 'Marilyn Cade'; 'Wolf Knoben'; 'Tony Holmes'; glen@icann.org; liaison6c@gnso.icann.org; 'Steve Metalitz'; cdigangi@inta.org;sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com; Harris, Anthony; excomm@bizconst.org Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] RE: EXTENSION OF DEADLINE - Call for Applicants for a Position of Volunteer Review Team Member - 29 July 2010
To my knowledge, which may be limited, there is no precedent nor reason for the Council chair to be taking input from Constituency chairs, as opposed to Councilors. If a letter is contemplated to come from the Council chair, then this discussion needs to happen on the Council list. Personally speaking, I don’t see this as a high priority for Council or the Council chair to be addressing on such a ‘rush’ basis. I haven’t noted any more than two members of the BC stating this is a significant issue, either.
Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1 (415) 738-8087 http://rodenbaugh.com
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Friday, July 16, 2010 7:04 AM To: Marilyn Cade; Wolf Knoben; Tony Holmes; glen@icann.org; liaison6c@gnso.icann.org; Steve Metalitz; cdigangi@inta.org; sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com; Harris, Anthony;excomm@bizconst.org Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] RE: EXTENSION OF DEADLINE - Call for Applicants for a Position of Volunteer Review Team Member - 29 July 2010
With the exception of the request that applications be submitted by Monday which has since been withdrawn and with the condition that I see the actual wording of the letter and have opportunity to suggest edits, I see no reason why I could not sign the letter. I do believe we need to make at least two points in addition to what Marilyn suggests: 1) A change such as this extension where the deadline impacts time sensitive processes of any of the organizations must receive affirmative support from those organizations before it is done; 2) In the case of the GNSO, it is totally inappropriate for the GNSO to be asked to compromise a process that it has designed to be as bottom-up as possible in a compressed timeframe without input from the GNSO.
Chuck
From: Marilyn Cade [mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, July 16, 2010 8:19 AM To: Wolf Knoben; Tony Holmes; Gomes, Chuck; glen@icann.org; liaison6c@gnso.icann.org; Steve Metalitz; cdigangi@inta.org; sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com; Harris, Anthony; excomm@bizconst.org Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: EXTENSION OF DEADLINE - Call for Applicants for a Position of Volunteer Review Team Member - 29 July 2010
Dear Colleagues
I am disquieted by the confusion introduced by ICANN into the RT processes. It was undoubtedly well meaning, but has disrupted already stressed processes.
I would think that it would be clear to ICANN's senior leadership and Board, and staff that fulfilling, with excellence, the AoC, and related Review Team processes, is incredibly important and significant to ICANN's credibility. I spoke at the public forum at Brussels that the "AOC document was heard around the world". and I meant that. The work of the RTs is an underpinning to implementing an accountable and responsible ICANN that is built upon self review, and self correction, where needed.
The community [meaning all of us] is struggling with its own work loads, and its own day to day challenges of delivering services, products, or just 'running the Internet'. Or being users of the Internet, and relying on the DNS, or other functions that ICANN is coordinating. The amount of pro bono contributions of time and resources from all stakeholders into ICANN is phenomenal, and is what makes ICANN work, and supports its success. It is challenging to tell that ICANN itself fully understands how to work with the fuller community, or quite has a grasp on how the organization should support the work of the community, who after all, are ICANN. I do not consider any stakeholder a 'volunteer', since standards organizations and associations and NGOs do not consider the work of their communities 'voluntary'. They survive because of that work and active involvement of the community, supported by staff at all levels, and by a Board that respects the value of broad, strong, diverse community support.
Having said all that, I am disappointed, like all of you about the confusion that has been introduced into the process. I do not want to dwell on that, OR waste time in chastisement or arguments.
Let's try to accept that this is a 'pilot' approach to developing the RTS, insist that there be an end of year discussion, which we should contribute to, if not drive, on how such processes will work within this SO, collaborate with our colleagues in other SOs and ACs, and be 'better' in 2011.
How about a solution? Or at least an approach:
I had a call with Chuck Gomes last night, and want to thank him for his time.
I am going to encourage the business community to submit their nominations on Monday. I cannot guarantee that 'works', since the business wide community is not necessarily following the machinations of the ICANN processes, ever "winding" as they are now. And, I must have taken my role as CSG alternate/BC Chair too seriously, and promptly widely distributed the extension.
Extensions are in general good things, and I know that busy people welcomed the notice.
However, Wolf, as usual, is offering a sane proposal. BUT, we need to ask for a consistent treatment. We can't have different rules for different stakeholders.
I propose that we 1) cajole the community to submit by Monday, noting that there is an ICANN announced extension but that in our leadership capacities within the GNSO, we urge submissions by Monday: 2) jointly send a letter to the selectors, copied to full Board, noting that the announcement[of extension introduced confusion; noting that there remains a strong commitment on the part of the GNSO community that the number of reps to the RT should be a minimum of 4 from GNSO, cite the reasons there [work load; diversity; broadened perspectives; respect for the bottom up and diverse nature of the GNSO community]; and note that we can only function with an extension that is equally applied to all RT nominees.
I would propose that the Council's chair sign it; Chairs of constituencies should sign it. Send it Monday. Copy full Board, and Chair of GAC.
I have copied the BC Executive Committee on this email. I do not have posting privileges to the Council.
Marilyn Cade BC Chair
participants (4)
-
Gomes, Chuck -
Jaime Wagner - CGI -
Mike Rodenbaugh -
Stéphane Van Gelder