[council] 2nd topic for joint Board/GNSO dinner
cgomes at verisign.com
Sat Feb 20 12:01:47 UTC 2010
What if we broaden the topic some by focusing on sustaining the volunteer model in the long term?
From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch]
Sent: Saturday, February 20, 2010 6:38 AM
To: Stéphane Van Gelder
Cc: Gomes, Chuck; council at gnso.icann.org
Subject: Re: [council] 2nd topic for joint Board/GNSO dinner
I understood Stéphane's suggestion to be for a sort of meta-reflection on the whole model rather than another discussion of prioritization. Stated at this level of abstraction, one can imagine ways in which it could be a useful and illuminating dialogue but also ways in which it could be unproductive. Maybe it would help to specify the possible content a little more?
I'm inclined to think it's worth doing but would like more sense of the likely direction.
On Feb 19, 2010, at 5:59 PM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
I know what you mean, but I don't see this as solely a prioritization problem. Sure that will help, but even if we do prioritize, we're still all spending most of our time working for ICANN and that is looking like it will only get worse. How long can the organisation hold if that's the case?
If the question is too contentious, let's leave it aside. But in that case, we still need to come up with a second topic.
Le 19 févr. 2010 à 14:49, Gomes, Chuck a écrit :
If others want this topic, that is fine. But I am not sure it is one well suited for the Board because it is one that we need to work and we are.
----- Original Message -----
From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org <owner-council at gnso.icann.org>
To: GNSO Council List <council at gnso.icann.org>
Sent: Fri Feb 19 07:40:13 2010
Subject: [council] 2nd topic for joint Board/GNSO dinner
I would like to propose a 2nd topic for the Board dinner (I believe the custom initiated by Avri was to have 2 topics).
As we saw yesterday from our discussions during the Council meeting, there is a danger of staff being overloaded by the current workload. And as I pointed out, my worry is more for us volunteers that have to balance an extremely demanding ICANN workload, for which we are neither paid nor compensated in any way, with our real lives and jobs. So I guess there comes a point where the question must be asked: is a system based on so much volunteer involvement viable in the long run, and if we want to keep the system as is (with the obvious benefits of being truly multi stakeholder), what solutions are there to make it viable (for example, more staff as Mike suggested yesterday)?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the council