Hi,

Thanks so much for raising this. I think the problem I have with this
question is that "inclusivity, accountability and transparency" are
all lumped together.

There is, I think, a natural tension between efficacy and inclusivity
and, to some extent, between efficacy and accountability (if the
latter is understood as enhanced consultation, engagement, etc.).
Obviously, processes would go more smoothly if it was easy to exclude
anyone who was being "disruptive" or "extreme" - though at a
potentially significant cost to the integrity of the process (who
defines what constitutes an "extreme" position?). Similarly, trying to
reach out to a broader base of opinions, and consult with
stakeholders, will naturally slow the process down, and make it more
costly - but again - there are benefits to the integrity of the
process.

However, I definitely think we should push back against any claims
that there is a tradeoff between transparency and efficacy, or that
transparency somehow presents an unreasonable burden on ICANN's
resources. There's no evidence that transparency actually inhibits
effective policy making, even though that claim is frequently raised
to argue against transparency. Similarly, transparency systems are
actually quite cheap to implement provided that they are baked in from
the outset.

In other words - I broadly agree with Ayden that this is a legitimate
and important question to ask - and I think we as a community need to
consider carefully what our position is on how these values are
balanced..... but I think it's inappropriate to consider transparency
as part of the conversation on efficiency and tradeoffs, since it
wrongly implies that transparent systems are ineffective.

Michael
On Sun, Sep 2, 2018 at 11:53 AM farzaneh badii <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> I don't buy this argument that ICANN is not getting anything done and we are all in danger etc. RDS was a very contagious issue, it had to be dealt with with care and perhaps some reform in working modality. I don't see the similar problem in sub pro or even RPM. They are making progress. Yes they won't be done by tomorrow but they will be done.
>
> My suggestion is: when you see you are not making progress change your methods try new ones. Don't be shy to change the chair, to have criteria for kicking out those who are disruptive and actually kick out the disruptive.
>
> On Sun, Sep 2, 2018 at 10:28 AM Ayden Férdeline <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Farzi,
>>
>> I think it is quite a legitimate question, and it is one that the GNSO Council has been pondering this year when imagining what the GNSO’s Policy Development Process 3.0 might look like.
>>
>> Of course you can be transparent and accountable and meet objectives, but not at no cost. Look at the now-dead RDS PDP WG for example. The cost in terms of our time as volunteers in having to dredge through 1,000s of pages of transcripts, just as many email threads, and joining in weekly calls for two years is substantial. And was it an effective use of our resources? I think not. Was it an effective use of ICANN’s resources? I’m struggling to think it was, given the working group died with no outcome document.
>>
>> So what’s the solution? I’ve read through the solutions that the BC, IPC, and the contracted parties have suggested to the GNSO Council (we did not submit any input) and some of the proposals are not great — for us. As a stakeholder group  I think we need to reflect on this question quite seriously and come to the table with some solutions. Because the solutions others have would essentially spell an end to bottom-up multistakeholder participation, and prioritise the creation of more Expert Working Groups to deal with challenging policy issues.
>>
>> Best wishes,
>>
>> Ayden
>>
>>
>> On 2 Sep 2018, at 16:09, farzaneh badii <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> Received this note from Cherine asking for our questions to the board to be submitted on 1 October. Also we need to think about how to respond to Boards questions.
>>
>> Their second question is quite curious. You can't be transparent and accountable and get work done? Old argument of efficiency vs other values.
>>
>>
>>
>> Sent on behalf of Cherine Chalaby, Chair, ICANN Board of Directors
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Questions to the Board - Please reply no later than Monday 1 October 2018
>>
>>
>>
>> The Board is looking forward to meeting with you at the upcoming AGM starting on 20 October 2018 in Barcelona.  While we are looking at always improving our processes and interaction with you, we also would like to look at the challenges ahead of us in 2019.
>>
>>
>>
>> I am therefore sending you herewith two questions that the Board would like to submit to your attention for the upcoming face-to-face meetings in Barcelona:
>>
>>
>>
>> - What will be your main priorities in 2019?
>>
>>
>>
>> - How should ICANN's multisatkeholder model of governance and Policy Development Process evolve to balance the increasing need for inclusivity, accountability and transparency, with the imperative of getting our work done and our policies developed in a more effective and timely manner, and with the efficient utilization of ICANN’s resources?
>>
>>
>>
>> In the meantime, we would be very grateful if you could send to Board Operations ([log in to unmask])  the questions you would like the Board to address during our face-to-face meetings.
>>
>>
>>
>> Given the finite time available for these meetings, we would appreciate it very much if you could list your questions in order of priority.   We would also appreciate getting your questions no later than Monday 1 October, 2018 or sooner.
>>
>>
>>
>> We thank you in advance for your time on this matter and we look forward to welcoming you!
>>
>>
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>>
>>
>> Cherine Chalaby
>>
>> Chair, ICANN Board of Directors
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Farzaneh
>>
>>
> --
> Farzaneh