[council] Crowdsourcing a bi-ennial performance review of the ICANN CEO

Wed Feb 26 20:13:46 UTC 2014

Hi John,

I don’t think any of this is a bad idea at all, and would like to (for my part) encourage community participation throughout all SOs and ACs.

Having said that, I’m willing to stick my neck out and be the, so far, sole person on this list to go ahead and say that a GNSO Council motion to get this particular ball rolling is not a good idea. I find all the ad-hoc processes (and I do mean all of them) going on to be a growing matter of concern, but don’t believe that Council is the right place to get a performance review started. When and if any ad-hoc group’s work starts to mess with the GNSO’s PDP as spelled out in the PDP Manual, the GNSO WG Guidelines and ICANN’s by-laws…, then sure…, that will be the time for us to push back.

In the meantime, I suggest that if our SGs and constituencies are in favour of taking this up, that it be initiated somewhere else (like the SO/AC leadership list), and not by a formal GNSO Council motion.

Just my thoughts.

Thanks.

Amr

On Feb 25, 2014, at 12:56 AM, john at crediblecontext.com wrote:

> All,
>  
> I am beginning to hear support for this idea from the GNSO more broadly and the CSG in particular.  How can we start the ball rolling so that all can comment?
>  
> Shall we consider a motion to seek community input on the evolution of the policy making process in the last two years, with emphasis on new management?
>  
> Shall we ask the heads of the GNSO constituencies and stakeholder groups to take on the task?
>  
> What are the other ways to initiate this exercise?
>  
> Berard
>  
> --------- Original Message ---------
> Subject: Re: Re: Re: [council] Crowdsourcing a bi-ennial performance review of the ICANN CEO
> From: "Maria Farrell" <maria.farrell at gmail.com>
> Date: 2/24/14 7:50 am
> To: "John Berard" <john at crediblecontext.com>
> Cc: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel at godaddy.com>, "Mike O'Connor" <mike at haven2.com>, "Council" <council at gnso.icann.org>
> 
> Hi John,
> 
> I take it back. You were not merely right, but prescient: Board confirms: ICANN seeks non-US HQ
> <http://domainincite.com/15837-board-confirms-icann-seeks-non-us-hq>  And yet another bunch of strategy panels, composed only of Board members.
> FYI I'm sanguine about globalisation and agree with Fadi's overall direction, but can't help wondering what kind of bottom-up multi-stakeholder process led to last week's decision. 
> 
> So on reflection I think it's not actually a bad idea to think about some sort feedback mechanism. As you say, Council's role is being taken over and I believe we should guard against that not in a territorial way but because there needs to be concerted action to preserve the multistakeholder model. 
> Happy to discuss further, m
> 
> 
> On 21 February 2014 16:20, <john at crediblecontext.com> wrote:
> Maria,
>  
> This is not so much about complaints (though it is clear that the policy responsibilities of the GNSO in general and its Council in particular are being squeezed by CEO-appointed strategy panels at the top and unmeasured crowdsourcing at the bottom) as it is an attempt to give the community the opportunity to offer its view of the path ICANN has taken in the last two years under Fadi's leadership.  There is some irony in using a crowdsourced model (as it is a contentious recommendation of the strategy panel on multi-stakeholder innovation), but it if is a good idea, it is a good idea.
>  
> When you consider last year's tumult over policy v. implementation, this year's Internet governance rallies (I note specifically that the upcoming meeting in Brazil has left the long & upstanding ICANN community members ccTLD managers feeling left out) and the expansion of strategy panels (first four, then five and now a bit of a blank check from the Board to the CEO), the Council has reason to ask for community input. 
>  
> Whether we call it a review of Fadi's performance or a review of how process has changed in the last two years is not relevant, but I see the two as one-in-the-same.
>  
> Even if no one hears what is said, I think we ought to ask.
>  
> I would be happy to offer a motion to that effect at the Singapore meeting so as to make it an official action (should it pass, of course!).
>  
> Cheers,
>  
> Berard
>  
> --------- Original Message ---------
> Subject: Re: Re: [council] Crowdsourcing a bi-ennial performance review of the ICANN CEO
> From: "Maria Farrell" <maria.farrell at gmail.com>
> Date: 2/21/14 2:06 am
> To: "John Berard" <john at crediblecontext.com>
> Cc: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel at godaddy.com>, "Mike O'Connor" <mike at haven2.com>, "Council" <council at gnso.icann.org>
> 
> I think it's an interesting idea - but I also see the risk for it to turn into a free-for-all of national or interest group sections peeved at certain Internet governance developments. 
> 
> I didn't hear so many complaints from other NCPH side colleagues about 'growing executive influence over policy' during the TCMH debacle, so colour me curious about this initiative, willing to be convinced - subject to a fair methodology that won't be astro-turfed -  but also somewhat skeptical of the context and motivation.
>  
> Maria
> 
> 
> On 20 February 2014 21:11, <john at crediblecontext.com> wrote:
> James,
>  
> Yes, we should include all, but the ball has to start rolling somewhere.  I figure we can do that.
>  
> Berard
>  
> --------- Original Message ---------
> Subject: Re: [council] Crowdsourcing a bi-ennial performance review of the ICANN CEO
> From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel at godaddy.com>
> Date: 2/20/14 1:01 pm
> To: "Mike O'Connor" <mike at haven2.com>, "John Berard" <john at crediblecontext.com>
> Cc: "Council" <council at gnso.icann.org>
> 
> Also think this is worth of discussion, but should include other SO/ACs in an effort to provide a “360” review.
>  
> J.
>  
>  
> From: Mike O'Connor <mike at haven2.com>
> Date: Thursday, February 20, 2014 at 13:35 
> To: John Berard <john at crediblecontext.com>
> Cc: GNSO Council List <council at gnso.icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [council] Crowdsourcing a bi-ennial performance review of the ICANN CEO
>  
> hi John,
>  
> i sense a certain irony in your reference to crowdsourcing, but i went ahead and circulated your proposal amongst the ISPCP — initial reactions are positive.  i personally think it’s a great idea.
>  
> mikey
>  
> 
> On Feb 20, 2014, at 10:28 AM, john at crediblecontext.com wrote:
> 
> All,
>  
> I think the next meeting of the ICANN, scheduled for London, marks two years of Fadi Chehade's term as the organization's President and CEO.  In light of the interest driven by the Strategy Panels in what is called crowd sourcing, I wonder if we should consider instigating a performance review of the executive using that method.
>  
> We can announce the initiative in Singapore and prepare a report for the London meeting.  The standing for the Council is the growing executive influence over policy, looking no further than the rise of appointed strategy panels in lieu of community-based working groups.
>  
> What is your view?
>  
> Cheers,
>  
> Berard
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20140226/75f2d79c/attachment.html>