[council] Proposed Agenda Item - Elimination of Friday Public Board Meetings

Thu May 3 16:27:22 UTC 2012

Thanks Ching. Personally, I must admit to not understanding your line of reasoning on pay. Many ICANN attendees are not paid to come to meetings. To them, cost reduction is a serious issue.

As for the Board, I don't think pay is the right tack here either. Board members are not paid, they are compensated (if they choose to accept the compensation) a rather measly 35k$ for what is in essence a full-time job all year round. I do think we as a community need to be mindful of what we ask of the Board. I often get the feeling this community considers that Board members are a limitless commodity to be used at will, and that should they dare complain about their workload, then tough!

I think if we want to continue to attract the right people to the Board, we also need to understand that after (more than) a week's work, the Board may not feel the current Friday organization is the best and that they want to experiment with different configurations.

I do agree, however, that this should not be done at the cost of transparency. Until I see this new format in Prague, I am unable to say whether that is the case or not.

Once again, all these are personal statements.

Stéphane Van Gelder
Directeur Général / General manager
INDOM Group NBT France
----------------
Head of Domain Operations
Group NBT

Le 3 mai 2012 à 17:42, Ching Chiao a écrit :

> I think we are mixing meeting efficiency and transparency here. What's important to the community, IMHO, is transparency. Some inefficiency (shorted / longer length of ICANN week) can somehow can be tolerated as most of us are part-timers / volunteers. If we are all getting paid for what we're doing for ICANN, we should be able to make rather quick and simply decision for this issue -- cut it short. Does some (if not all) Board members get paid for their services to ICANN ? 
> 
> If shorter meeting time can help boost efficiency (i.e. decision has to be made in X time), that's fine. If longer meeting time can help ensure quality of decision (including the rational), that's fine too. If ICANN struggles in half way, then it should at least ensure transparency (and public increase) is always there. 
> 
> Just my two cents. 
> 
> Ching
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 9:16 PM, Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder at indom.com> wrote:
> Thanks Wolf and Wolfgang for your comments.
> 
> 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.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Stéphane Van Gelder
> Directeur Général / General manager
> INDOM Group NBT France
> ----------------
> Head of Domain Operations
> Group NBT
> 
> Le 3 mai 2012 à 11:38, <KnobenW at telekom.de> <KnobenW at telekom.de> a écrit :
> 
>> My personal view on this is mixed.
>>  
>> 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.
>> But it makes a difference
>> - 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"
>> or
>> - to discuss and take decisions publicly
>>  
>> 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.
>> 
>> Best regards 
>> Wolf-Ulrich
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Von: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Stéphane Van Gelder
>> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 2. Mai 2012 22:52
>> An: Margie Milam
>> Cc: council at gnso.icann.org Council
>> Betreff: Re: [council] Proposed Agenda Item - Elimination of Friday Public Board Meetings
>> 
>> Thanks Margie, much appreciated.
>> 
>> In the meantime, let me add some more context for the benefit of the Council.
>> 
>> 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.
>> 
>> 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.
>> 
>> 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.
>> 
>> 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.
>> 
>> Stéphane
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Le 2 mai 2012 à 22:10, Margie Milam a écrit :
>> 
>>> Hi Stéphane,
>>> I’ll follow up internally to provide the requested information.
>>> Best regards,
>>> Margie
>>> From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder
>>> Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2012 2:08 PM
>>> To: council at gnso.icann.org Council
>>> Subject: Re: [council] Proposed Agenda Item - Elimination of Friday Public Board Meetings
>>> Is someone from Staff able to provide the requested information, whether it be on the list or during the next Council meeting?
>>> Stéphane
>>> Le 2 mai 2012 à 20:38, Neuman, Jeff a écrit :
>>> 
>>> 
>>> All,
>>> 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. 
>>> 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?
>>> 
>>> 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.
>>> 
>>> Thanks.
>>> Jeffrey J. Neuman 
>>> Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs
>>> 21575 Ridgetop Circle, Sterling, VA 20166
>>> Office: +1.571.434.5772  Mobile: +1.202.549.5079  Fax: +1.703.738.7965 / jeff.neuman at neustar.biz  / www.neustar.biz
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Ching CHIAO
> Vice President, DotAsia Organisation LTD.
> Chair, Asia Pacific Networking Group
> Member of ICANN GNSO Council & RySG
> =====================================
> Email: chiao at registry.asia     Skype: chiao_rw
> Mobile: +886-918211372  |  +86-13520187032
> www.registry.asia | www.apngcamp.asia
> www.facebook.com/ching.chiao
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20120503/99d24b07/attachment.html>