[council] ICANN 50: GNSO Council Meeting with the ICANN Board

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

My interpretation of that in respect to the interests of the community
that was that in electing someone the voters, or perhaps their
constituencies if they are not free to vote as they think best for
ICANN, could gauge whether the person being considered had a view of the
ICANN that was such that what was good for ICANN was very much in
harmony with what was good for the GNSO.

Yes, their obligation as Board members is to take the whole of ICANN
into account, but we elect them because we think that their world view
is compatible with our needs.  And we reject them when we don't think
so.  So I could think that while X might be able to do a good enough job
and that he would do what he thought best for ICANN, his world view was
one that I thought did not support the GNSO and thus I would not give
him my vote.

I see no incompatibility between the two.

avri

On 12-Jun-14 22:01, john at crediblecontext.com wrote:
> Jonathan,
>  
> The process of electing a member of the board by the non-contracted
> party's house and the expanding discussion about ICANN accountability
> led me to review the bylaws and to this: "Article VI, Section 7:
> Directors shall serve as individuals who have the duty to *act in what
> they reasonably believe are the best interests of ICANN and not as
> representatives of the entity that selected them*, their employers, or
> any other organizations or constituencies."  The *bold face* is mine.
>  
> I would like to talk to the Board about how, in light of their role
> there can be a better counterbalance for the view of the community. 
> Yes, each entity can express its view, but there is not place in ICANN's
> structure where the view of the community can roll up to serve as a
> counterbalance to management initiatives aimed at growth and expansion
> that are, by bylaw, supported by the board.  Even if you consider the
> GNSO Council, the ccNSO Council, the GAC, ALAS and all the other SOs and
> ACs as significant the portfolio of each is narrower than it is in
> combination.
>  
> There is some discussion at the constituency level and experience
> arising from the proliferation of cross community working groups, but
> without a permanent voice for the community as a whole, there is a
> likelihood that the community will continue to find itself trying to
> catch up.
>  
> That is what I would like to talk about.
>  
> Berard
>  
> 
>     --------- Original Message ---------
>     Subject: RE: [council] ICANN 50: GNSO Council Meeting with the ICANN
>     Board
>     From: "Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson at afilias.info>
>     Date: 6/12/14 10:32 am
>     To: "'Reed, Daniel A'" <dan-reed at uiowa.edu>, council at gnso.icann.org
> 
>     Thanks Dan.
> 
>      
> 
>     *From:*Reed, Daniel A [mailto:dan-reed at uiowa.edu]
>     *Sent:* 12 June 2014 18:26
>     *To:* jrobinson at afilias.info; council at gnso.icann.org
>     *Subject:* RE: [council] ICANN 50: GNSO Council Meeting with the
>     ICANN Board
> 
>      
> 
>     Transparency on decision processes is what I hear most often with
>     respect to the ICANN board (relates to bypassing processes).
> 
>      
> 
>     *From:*owner-council at gnso.icann.org
>     <mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org>
>     [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Jonathan Robinson
>     *Sent:* Thursday, June 12, 2014 7:37 AM
>     *To:* council at gnso.icann.org <mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>
>     *Subject:* [council] ICANN 50: GNSO Council Meeting with the ICANN Board
> 
>      
> 
>     All,
> 
>      
> 
>     Please can you provide input as to the topics your SG and/or
>     Constituency would like to see the Council (bearing in mind the role
>     and function of the Council) raise and discuss with the ICANN board
>     in our meeting in London.
> 
>      
> 
>     A couple of ideas:
> 
>      
> 
>     -          An update on key themes of the work of the Council and
>     associated policy work in the GNSO (Keeping this very short)
> 
>     o   GNSO / GAC CG
> 
>     o   PDP improvements
> 
>     o   Other?
> 
>     -          Effective and appropriate management of policy work in
>     the ICANN structures.
>     A point related to concerns over bypassing policy processes.  Has
>     this improved, got worse or stayed the same?
> 
>     -          A N Other
> 
>      
> 
>      
> 
>     Jonathan
> 
>      
> 
>      
>