[Ssr2-review] Meet-up now a ICANN registration desk

[Geoff Huston]

Denise,

I have already posted today some of my expectations that require our leadership to conduct themselves to rigorous level of accountability and responsibility in their behaviour to all team members, our support staff and the larger community. It is evident that you disagree with Kaveh’s view, but I’m afraid I personally view it as inappropriate to voice your disagreement by accusing Kaveh of being “incorrect” and I wish to note my view here. There are many ways to phrase a personal disagreement in ways that offer Kaveh due respect and politeness.

I also take the option of being “incorrect”, as you put it, on this matter, but I agree with Kaveh that any gathering of SSR2 team members, where the topic of discussion is SSR2 matters should be considered as a SSR2 meeting and should follow inclusiveness rules, expected for any meeting of the review team. The grounds for my incorrectness is that there is a tendency to confuse outcomes from team meetings and conversations from informal meetings and this is an element of confusion that I would expect the chairs to help us avoid rather that appear to promote..

Geoff





> On 2 Nov 2017, at 11:49 am, Denise Michel <denisemichel at fb.com> wrote:
> 
> Kaveh:  Please see the responses and clarifications posted to this list. 
>  
> You are incorrect that “any gathering of SSR2 team members, where the topic of discussion is SSR2 matters should be considered as a SSR2 meeting.”  Just as any SSAC members or any Board members talking about their respective work is not considered an SSAC or Board meeting.
>  
> Best,
> Denise 
>  
> Denise Michel
> Domain Name System Strategy & Management
> Facebook, Inc.
> denisemichel at fb.com
>  
>  
>  
> On 11/2/17, 11:33 AM, "Kaveh Ranjbar" <kaveh.ranjbar at board.icann.org> wrote:
>  
>     Dear SSR2 Review Team:
>     
>     I would like to echo what Geoff said and put my complaints on the record about being excluded from both the meeting with SSAC yesterday and this ad-hoc meeting with basically zero prior notice time.
>     
>     I found out about SSAC meeting much later after the meeting happened, by word of mouth. This morning I had to be in a meeting and make a short presentation and the notice (which I saw only 15 minutes after it was posted, since it was sent over e-mail) did not leave any room for me to make arrangements and find a replacement presenter.
>     
>     I also have to state that I do not agree with urgency as a reason for this style of communication and leadership. I expect SSR2 RT leadership to promote a calm approach, to stand by important principals of openness, transparency and inclusiveness and in-case additional time is needed for proper call of a team meeting, liaise with involved parties (in this case SO/AC Leadership and Board) to explain time constraints and get additional time to organise, instead of setting these type of ad-hoc meetings and excluding members, including the ones who have to join remotely.
>     
>     Needless to say, any gathering of SSR2 team members, where the topic of discussion is SSR2 matters should be considered as a SSR2 meeting and should follow inclusiveness rules, expected for any meeting of the review team.
>     
>     All the best,
>     Kaveh.
>     
>     
>     > On 2 Nov 2017, at 10:41, Geoff Huston <gih at apnic.net> wrote:
>     > 
>     > I am sorry to sound like a broken record Denise, but calling a SSR2 meeting with ZERO notice is yet another instance of my issues with this leadership style. I would like to request some level of due notice and efforts for inclusion of all team members on the part of leadership, as without it I believe that you cannot subsequently represent any outcome as being representative in any form or fashion of the SSR2 team.
>     > 
>     > As I have already noted here, my conversations with the SSAC chairs last night indicated that there was no expectation of any subsequent communication from SSR2 so I am confused that there are different reports of outcomes from presumably the same meeting. Perhaps this is illustrative of the perils of undertaking such informal “get togethers” as becoming a source of further dysfunctionality rather than resolving them.
>     > 
>     > Geoff
>     > 
>     > 
>     >> On 2 Nov 2017, at 10:16 am, Denise Michel <denisemichel at fb.com> wrote:
>     >> 
>     >> To work on info request for some  SSAC  members
>     >> 
>     >> Denise Michel
>     >> Sent via phone
>     >> _______________________________________________
>     >> Ssr2-review mailing list
>     >> Ssr2-review at icann.org
>     >> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_ssr2-2Dreview&d=DwIFaQ&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=MWVuq3jZIw5gwhGdDf-HWNL4CEWIsdUnt9gOgplCArM&m=P9xo_N19oc1VklN5HRCxZjxiN6uw_vIgjHhq_xa-Dew&s=4UdMT8lh3ic3XMdm__JGiNlaff97egmlOpvulh5QZ-A&e=
>     > 
>     > _______________________________________________
>     > Ssr2-review mailing list
>     > Ssr2-review at icann.org
>     > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_ssr2-2Dreview&d=DwIFaQ&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=MWVuq3jZIw5gwhGdDf-HWNL4CEWIsdUnt9gOgplCArM&m=P9xo_N19oc1VklN5HRCxZjxiN6uw_vIgjHhq_xa-Dew&s=4UdMT8lh3ic3XMdm__JGiNlaff97egmlOpvulh5QZ-A&e=
>     
>