Hi,

In case I wasn’t as clear as I would have liked to have been during the NCSG policy call, I am personally not opposed to the idea put forward by the CSG; of using crowdsourcing as a means of getting feedback on the CEO’s performance from both within and outside of the ICANN community. However, I don’t see how the GNSO Council is the right venue to initiate this kind of endeavour. The Council’s mandate is to manage the GNSO’s policy process. The rules governing this process, and the Council’s role in it, are spelled out in the GNSO PDP Manual, the GNSO Working Group Guidelines and ICANN’s by-laws. That’s a pretty big and important job, and I recommend the Council to stick to it and try to do it well.

So when/if the day comes in which any of the strategic panels, the expert working groups or any other ad-hoc process starts to mess with the GNSO's process ensuring the NCSG’s (and other SGs) ability to participate in gTLD policy…, well then yeah…, the GNSO Council should be all over that. That doesn’t seem to be the case just yet.

I, like others, am more than a little apprehensive of the ad-hoc groups being created one after the other. In Buenos Aires, there was talk about some sort of ICANN Board action following the conclusion of the strategic panels. It hasn’t been made clear (to my knowledge) what kind of action that may be. The phrase non-binding Board action was tossed around a bit, and I can’t imagine what that means. It has also been suggested (more recently) that the gTLD Directory Services (WHOIS) Expert Working Group’s final report would constitute an issue report for a post-EWG PDP. In scenarios like these, the GNSO Council will surely need to react, and I wonder to what extent the CSG and others will respond, and will their responses be equally combative if these ad-hoc processes suit their purposes. I don’t believe we should differentiate between any of them.

So sure…, I see no harm in getting perspectives from outside of the ICANN bubble, so long as they don’t interfere with policy development of gTLDs without due process. So far, they haven’t, although I can’t be sure that there won’t be attempts to make this happen in the future. I also see no harm in using Fadi’s own methods in getting perspectives on his performance, but also see no reason why this should be on the GNSO Council’s agenda. Other topics like globalising the IANA function will have (or pretty much already have) their own platforms for discussions to take place.

So far, the idea of crowdsourcing feedback on ICANN’s CEO and staff is just talk on the GNSO Council list. I don’t see it materialising to anything beyond that there. Maybe this discussion should move to other lists, like the AC/SO leadership list or the new list for leadership of the Non-Contracted Party House. We should, of course, keep discussions on this topic open on this list and during our monthly calls as well.

Apologies about the rant.

Thanks.

Amr

On Feb 26, 2014, at 7:38 PM, Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> Sorry I missed the call, the WGEC marathon in Geneva has swallowed my life this week.
> 
> On 26-Feb-14 18:41, William Drake wrote:
>> Why we would want to be dupes in their campaign is utterly beyond me.
> 
> 
> Can you explain what you are saying here in plain English.  I won't ask you who you are calling a dupe because I am sure you meant it as a expressive generality and weren't actually accusing anyone of being a dupe; that would be absurdly mean.
> 
> Are we only against ICANN Staff pre-emptive behavior when it is our issues they mess with?
> 
> If you are saying this is no time to look the gift horse in the mouth because they are sponsoring NCUC's meeting, I understand, especially because of your role as the event organizer. I think, though, that it is important to be consistent about our position on Staff&Board unilateral behavior and not only object when our goals are being interfered with, no matter how much we love Fadi.
> 
> And he is loveable for a CEO.
> 
> cheers,
> 
> avri
> 
> PS.  If this note makes you think i've lost my mind, chalk it up to 2 weeks of WSIS MPP, IGF and now WGEC.  IETF next week, yipee!