[council] End of the Shadow Council

[Gomes, Chuck]

Thanks Mike.  Maybe we will have time to discuss this in our breakfast
meeting.
 
Chuck


________________________________

	From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org
[mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh
	Sent: Saturday, October 24, 2009 5:42 PM
	To: GNSO Council
	Subject: RE: [council] End of the Shadow Council
	
	

	Hi Chuck,

	This is not a policy development issue, but instead is
administrative.  I have twice been elected to represent the BC in
Council administrative matters.  Specifically per our Charter section
4.1, "[t]he representatives will act in the GNSO Council as
representatives of and spokespersons for the Constituency and will
collaborate with other members of the Council in pursuit of the mission
of the Constituency."

	I am only trying to discontinue an unwarranted privilege by
which unrepresentative persons increasingly usurp the role of
representative Councilors and Liaisons, and which unduly takes time from
the entire Council and Staff.

	 

	Do you have any reasoned argument against this?

	 

	Thanks,

	Mike

	 

	Mike Rodenbaugh

	RODENBAUGH LAW

	548 Market Street

	San Francisco, CA  94104

	(415) 738-8087
<http://service.ringcentral.com/ringme/callback.asp?mbid=57178438,0,&ref
erer=http://rodenbaugh.com/contact> 

	http://rodenbaugh.com <http://rodenbaugh.com/> 

	 

	 

	From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes at verisign.com] 
	Sent: Saturday, October 24, 2009 2:15 PM
	To: icann at rodenbaugh.com; GNSO Council
	Subject: RE: [council] End of the Shadow Council

	 

	Mike,

	 

	Is this a CBUC request?

	 

	Chuck

		 

		
________________________________


		From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org
[mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh
		Sent: Saturday, October 24, 2009 4:42 PM
		To: GNSO Council
		Subject: [council] End of the Shadow Council

		Dear Colleagues,

		 

		I write again regarding the so-called "Observers" at
face-to-face GNSO Council meetings.  

		 

		Of course, I fully support that our face-to-face
meetings are generally always open to true observers, both those present
and located remotely.  And I fully support that all of our meetings are
generally fully recorded and transcribed.  Indeed I think they should be
translated, and that our conference calls be opened in real time to the
public, with non-speaking access.  I fully support that our email list
is open and archived.  All of this allows the public to see how the
Council operates in practically real-time, and to experience the
information and debate first-hand.  Council must have flexibility to
close its sessions and/or communicate privately, when it deems necessary
for any stated and agreed reason.  But I believe that has never happened
to date, and of course the default must be open meetings and open
communications.

		 

		However, the growing trend is for GNSO "Observers" to
participate in the Council's weekend face-to-face meetings on equal
footing with Councilors, Liasons and Staff.  A small and growing group
of privileged observers, none of whom are elected or appointed to
represent anyone but themselves and/or their specific organizations, are
increasingly taking an inordinate amount of Council and Staff time.  In
effect, they are a "Shadow Council" that follows the Council from
meeting to meeting, taking advantage of a privilege they ought not have.
This must stop, effective immediately.  

		 

		It is not scalable as the community of interested
observers grows and diversifies.  It is not fair in any way:  

		 

		n  Not fair to Councilors and Liasons who offer great
personal sacrifice to travel long distances away from their lives,
volunteering an overly full weekend in advance of a lengthy five-day
meeting.  

		 

		n  Not fair to the constituents who elected or appointed
the Councilors and Liasons, expecting that they (and only they) would
serve as those constituents' representatives on Council.  

		 

		n  Not fair to the general public whose only
opportunities for input to Council are via the Constituencies, Working
Groups or public comment periods.  Particularly not fair to the general
public that does not speak English, or who cannot attend the sessions,
as they have no equal ability to participate vis a vis the "Shadow
Council".

		 

		n  Not fair to the Staff nor the Council as a whole,
whose only opportunity to communicate face-to-face is during these
meetings.

		 

		The GNSO Council is a representative body.  The
representative Councilors and designated Liaisons must be allowed to do
their jobs, which absolutely requires face-to-face interaction with
Staff and with each other -- without constant 'clarifying questions',
'points of order', comments or questions from the public.    To my
knowledge, no other SO, nor the GAC nor the Board - nor any other
council, committee or board anywhere in the world -- ever allow such
privilege to observers.  Such points should be raised through Council
representatives, or during any or all of the many opportunities for
public comment into the Council processes.  Indeed this is the
reason-for-being of the Constituencies themselves, of Working Groups, of
public comment periods in general, and of the public comment periods
allowed at the Council's face-to-face meetings (which can also be used
in our weekend sessions, if time allows).

		 

		Therefore, beginning with the newTLD session today, I
request that observers be disallowed equal access to the Council table
and microphones, just as they are disallowed such access at our larger
public meetings and in our conference calls.  The material presented by
Staff in the session today will doubtless be repeated during a public
session later in the week, which is a perfect opportunity for anyone to
ask their questions or make their points directly to the Staff, without
wasting tremendously valuable and scarce face-to-face Council/Staff
time.  As we have seen, too many people are abusing the privilege of
open access to raise points that they then raise again and again at
every opportunity throughout the ICANN meeting, and/or to communicate
their particular, non-representative interests.  They are abusing a
privilege that they should not have in the first place, because it is
not fair.

		 

		Does anyone have an argument as to why the current
privilege should be allowed to continue?  Is anyone aware of any other
council, board or committee, anywhere in the world, that allows such a
privilege to observers?

		 

		Otherwise, I hope the privilege will be discontinued
immediately, and request Avri to confirm via reply to this list.  If
not, my next effort to stop this will be an Ombudsman complaint, on
behalf of the entire community, so that this practice is investigated by
a neutral party and discussed formally at the Council and/or Board
level(s).  I also request that the relevant OSC team discuss this and
recommend appropriate provisions in our Council Rules of Procedure to
ensure that nobody is given undue and disruptive access to Council,
Liaisons and Staff during our meetings.  

		 

		Each and every member of the community - other than the
"Shadow Councilors" and their specific organizations -- suffer from the
continuation of this unwarranted and unseemly privilege that offered to
just a few, at the expense of the many.

		 

		Sincerely,

		Mike

		 

		Mike Rodenbaugh

		RODENBAUGH LAW

		548 Market Street

		San Francisco, CA  94104

		(415) 738-8087
<http://service.ringcentral.com/ringme/callback.asp?mbid=57178438,0,&ref
erer=http://rodenbaugh.com/contact> 

		http://rodenbaugh.com <http://rodenbaugh.com/> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20091024/17113019/attachment.html>