<html>
<body>
I recall a conversation at the end of the Costa Rica meeting which
implied that the Board's ability to move all decisions onto the consent
agenda meant that there had been no need for that public meeting, and by
using induction, there would be no need for any further meeting either.
My recollection of the concept of induction is that you need more than
one sample and that there needs to be a relationship linking the samples.
<br><br>
I somehow doubt that the lack of controversial subjects on that agenda
means that there wwill never be another controversial subject up for a
Board decision.<br><br>
If you go back to recent meetings where there HAVE been issues of
contention, how the meetings played out told us a fair amount about the
thought processes of various Board members and what things they valued.
Some the VERY few data points that we have to allow us to judge Board
member performance.<br><br>
Alan<br><br>
At 03/05/2012 07:02 PM, Mason Cole wrote:<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""><font size=2>I agree with
Stephane's comment regarding time and efficiency, but also with Thomas'
comment regarding transparency. I'm all for doing what's reasonable
to keep meetings manageable. However, the board selectively
discloses information about its decisions as it is. I'd like to
hear about why this improves transparency. If there's a credible
reason, I'm likely to be okay with it.<br><br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org on behalf of Thomas Rickert<br>
Sent: Thu 5/3/2012 9:27 AM<br>
To: Stéphane Van Gelder<br>
Cc: council@gnso.icann.org<br>
Subject: Re: [council] Proposed Agenda Item - Elimination of Friday
Public Board Meetings<br><br>
Stéphane, all,<br>
holding meetings for the sake of having them and wasting everyone's
valuable time should by all means avoided (I am sure most of you have
seen the educational videos "Meetings, Bloody Meetings"
with John Cleese, which I highly recommend :-)).<br><br>
I also understand that it is a challenge to travel to three meetings per
year that last for a week.<br><br>
Thus, I fully support the idea of making meetings more
effective.<br><br>
Therefore,<br>
- publishing the committee reports sounds reasonable.<br>
- adding two sessions with community interaction sounds reasonable,
too.<br><br>
However, I am not convinced that the public Board meeting should be
sacrificed to shorten the meeting by one day.<br>
Looking at the number of attendees, only those interested in the Board
meetings participate on Friday. Participation is voluntary and those who
want to spend less time at the meetings have the choice to
leave.<br><br>
Eliminating the public Board meeting to save time sounds patronizing to
me. I do agree that it is at times a theatre and that the format could be
improved. Nonetheless, even if it is a theatre, participants get the
chance to learn how the group works and what the views of the board
members are. I also think it makes a difference for board members to
express their views publicly, so they might even be more diligent (I am
not indicating board members are not diligent, but chaining the format
may have that effect).<br><br>
While I do believe that the Board made this change with the best
intentions, I think it was wrong (at least for the Prague meeting to
start) and inadequately implemented.<br><br>
- There was no consultation (at least I have not seen any) on this
subject matter to get community feedback whether or not the community
wishes the board to save its time.<br><br>
- In its announcement, ICANN does not offer any alternatives to keep
transparency at the same level. This gives raise to the suspicion that
there will be less transparency in the future.<br><br>
- Timing for this change is unfortunate given the TAS interruption, the
upcoming controversial batching process and the IANA bid. Taking the
meetings out of the public arena may be perceived as not wishing to
publicly discuss these (and certainly other) important matters.<br><br>
Maybe meetings can actually be streamlined and end earlier, but in my
view, this should not be done in a phase where ICANN is exposed to
criticism as much as now.<br><br>
Thomas<br><br>
<br>
___________________________________________________________<br>
Thomas Rickert, Attorney at Law<br><br>
Managing Partner, Schollmeyer & Rickert Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft
mbH<br>
<a href="http://www.anwaelte.de/" eudora="autourl">www.anwaelte.de</a><br>
<br>
Director Names & Numbers, eco Association of the German Internet
Industry<br>
<a href="http://www.eco.de/" eudora="autourl">www.eco.de</a><br><br>
<br>
Am 03.05.2012 um 15:16 schrieb Stéphane Van Gelder:<br><br>
<br>
Thanks Wolf and Wolfgang for
your comments.<br><br>
If there is more decision on
this, could I urge others to chime in so that we can ascertain whether a
full agenda item is needed on this, or whether the discussion can be had
on the list.<br><br>
Thanks,<br><br>
Stéphane Van Gelder<br>
Directeur Général / General
manager<br>
INDOM Group NBT France<br>
----------------<br>
Head of Domain Operations<br>
Group NBT<br>
<br>
Le 3 mai 2012 à 11:38,
<KnobenW@telekom.de> <KnobenW@telekom.de> a écrit :<br><br>
<br>
My personal view on this is
mixed.<br>
<br>
Saving of time and money is always
preferable - but not at the expense of transparency when the board is
taking decisions at public meetings. SO/AC/BC reporting could be removed
by providing them in written form only.<br>
But it makes a difference<br>
- to hold "a one-hour session
following the Public Forum on Thursday afternoon..... and outline what
they have heard during the week from their meetings with AC/SOs and their
constituent parts and identify those matters they expect to be dealing
with...", to decide upon during non-public board sessions and at the
following ICANN Public Meeting to "report to the community on what
they have dealt with since Prague"<br>
or<br>
- to discuss and take decisions
publicly<br>
<br>
I'm curious to know whether this
board decision was based on the survey ("Improving Global
Engagement") ICANN started in March where they solicited community
input on improving e.g. effectiveness. For me the Public Meetings - with
all their facets - are per se the highlights of global
engagement.<br><br>
<br>
Best regards<br>
Wolf-Ulrich<br><br>
<br><br>
<br>
________________________________<br><br>
Von:
owner-council@gnso.icann.org
[<a href="mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org">
mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org</a>] Im Auftrag von Stéphane Van
Gelder<br>
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 2.
Mai 2012 22:52<br>
An: Margie Milam<br>
Cc:
council@gnso.icann.org Council<br>
Betreff: Re: [council]
Proposed Agenda Item - Elimination of Friday Public Board Meetings<br>
<br>
<br>
Thanks Margie, much
appreciated.<br><br>
In the meantime, let me
add some more context for the benefit of the Council.<br><br>
In CR, Steve asked me
what I would think of the idea of shortening the ICANN meeting week by
doing away with the Friday. This was floated to me as just an idea. I was
given no indication that it would be implemented one day, let alone in
Prague. And I was given no details on its possible
implementation.<br><br>
When Steve discussed
this with me, I did not get the sense that he meant to do a public
consultation on this decision. This was a private conversation and not
one where it was at any time made clear to me that I should break Steve's
confidence and discuss this publicly. That is why I did not discuss this
here.<br><br>
This week's announcement
has, as Jeff says, generated some negative comments. Those that I have
seen are that this decision was taken without any consultation and that
doing away with the Friday Board meeting is detrimental to
transparency.<br><br>
My own personal view is
otherwise. I believe that cutting the Friday out of the ICANN week is a
step in the right direction towards reducing costs and time challenges
for meeting participants, including the Board. Over the past year, I have
seen the Board work hard to improve its transparency. We now have
detailed rationale on votes at every meeting and explanations of the
issues being considered. So I am comfortable with giving the Board a
little of the benefit of the doubt in trying out new ideas such as this
one.<br><br>
Stéphane<br>
<br>
<br>
<br><br>
Le 2 mai 2012 à 22:10,
Margie Milam a écrit :<br><br>
<br>
Hi Stéphane,<br>
I'll follow up internally to
provide the requested information.<br>
Best regards,<br>
Margie<br>
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org
[<a href="mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org">
mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org</a>] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van
Gelder<br>
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2012 2:08
PM<br>
To: council@gnso.icann.org
Council<br>
Subject: Re: [council] Proposed
Agenda Item - Elimination of Friday Public Board Meetings<br>
Is someone from Staff able to
provide the requested information, whether it be on the list or during
the next Council meeting?<br>
Stéphane<br>
Le 2 mai 2012 à 20:38, Neuman, Jeff
a écrit :<br><br>
<br>
All,<br>
Given the announcement yesterday of
the elimination of the public Board meetings at ICANN, I would like to
put this on the Council agenda as a discussion item. I would like
it if someone from ICANN that is familiar with the rationale behind this
decision could give us an explanation of how and why that decision was
made.<br>
Also, if the ICANN Board can
unilaterally declare that all of its meetings will be private, does this
set a precedent for its Supporting Organizations to do the same
thing? I have not reviewed the bylaws with respect to the Council
in a little bit, but does the Council have the discretion to declare that
it will no longer hold a public GNSO Council meeting at ICANN?<br>
<br>
I think there has been enough
disapproval expressed within the community in the last day or so that at
least merits a discussion of this decision at the Council level.<br>
<br>
Thanks.<br>
<br>
Jeffrey J. Neuman<br>
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President,
Business Affairs<br>
21575 Ridgetop Circle, Sterling, VA
20166<br>
Office: +1.571.434.5772
Mobile: +1.202.549.5079 Fax: +1.703.738.7965 /
jeff.neuman@neustar.biz
<<a href="mailto:jeff.neuman@neustar.biz">
mailto:jeff.neuman@neustar.biz</a>> /
<a href="http://www.neustar.biz/" eudora="autourl">www.neustar.biz</a>
<<a href="http://www.neustar.biz/">http://www.neustar.biz/</a>><br>
<br>
<br><br>
<br>
___________________________________________________________<br>
Thomas Rickert, Rechtsanwalt<br>
Schollmeyer & Rickert Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft m.b.H. (i.e.
law firm)<br>
Geschäftsführer / CEO: Torsten Schollmeyer, Thomas Rickert<br>
HRB 9262, AG Bonn<br><br>
Büro / Office Bonn:<br>
Kaiserplatz 7-9, 53113 Bonn, Germany<br>
Phone: +49 (0)228 74 898 - 0<br><br>
Büro / Office Frankfurt a.M.:<br>
Savignystraße 43, 60325 Frankfurt, Germany<br>
Phone: +49 (0)69 714 021 - 56<br><br>
Zentralfax: +49 (0)228 74 898 - 66<br><br>
mailto: rickert@anwaelte.de<br>
skype-id: trickert<br>
web:
<a href="http://www.anwaelte.de/" eudora="autourl">www.anwaelte.de</a><br>
<br>
</font></blockquote></body>
</html>