Hi, I am fine with reporting, informing about votes etc since I included that already in my candidate statement :) I see a lot of value to doing it for members engagement. For polling and policy engagement, I think we can try some "liquid democracy" tool, and in fact we tried once at ncsg as experiment https://adhocracy.de . I won't assert that tool would help but I am happy to start with some practices. I will send my resume later . Best, Rafik On Aug 17, 2016 6:22 PM, "Tapani Tarvainen" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Hi Bill, all, > > First I'll have to confess I haven't written or maintained a proper > resume since 1998... but those who want to know more about my > background can get some idea by reading my last year's candidate statement: > https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Candidate+Statements# > candidatestaments--1976617577 > > But I would wholeheartedly support better reporting of council > activities, possibly as a task rotated amongst councillors, > and maybe reviewed in our monthly policy calls, limited though > the time there is. > > As for coordinating councillors actions, it would be very useful to > have more discussion about major issues before they come to a vote. > > We could even poll the entire membership in advance of voting on > contentious major issues. > > In any case I support more openness and transparency > in everything we do. > > Tapani > > On Aug 17 10:39, William Drake ([log in to unmask]) wrote: > > > Hi > > > > > On Aug 16, 2016, at 23:38, Robin Gross <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > > > > > Agreed. It is important for members to become more acquainted with > our representatives and resumes are extremely helpful for that. > > > > Sharing candidates’ resumes is not a bad idea. But I’d like to suggest > we go beyond this. Two issue we might want to consider on tomorrow’s call: > > > > When I joined Council in 2009, we discussed the need for better > reporting to members as to what their reps were actually doing in Council. > We launched an attempt to deal with this by having Councilors take turns > doing brief reports about Council meetings. Alas it didn’t get far, after a > couple times the sense of urgency faded, people told themselves “well, > members can always look at the Council archive to see what’s happening," > and the effort drifted off. But of course it’s actually not easy for a > member to dive through the Council archive and try to reconstruct what’s > happening, and it’s not so hard to compose a one or two paragraph summary > of a monthly Council meeting indicating how our reps voted on which issues, > especially if the workload is rotated among six Councilors, making it just > a few times per year each. So while it’s a bit uncomfortable suggesting > work to be done by others, I’d like to put this idea back on the table > ahead of our Meet the Candidates call tomorrow. It need not be an one > onerous thing, and after all we exist to participate in the GNSO, so surely > we should be able to know how our reps are representing us in the GNSO. > Especially when we’re being asked to vote them into ‘office’ (for > incumbents) on the basis of past performance. > > > > More generally, we have long debated the matter of coordination among > Council reps. Unlike most if not all other parts of the GNSO, NCSG by > charter doesn’t normally do ‘directed voting,’ where the members are bound > to vote in conformity with a rough consensus position. We have a charter > provision to do this in exceptional cases, but I don’t recall it ever being > invoked. We’ve always been content to operate on the notion that the > Councilor does what s/he thinks is in the best interest of civil society @ > GNSO, and if members don’t approve of anyone’s action they can vote them > out in the next cycle. But as that has not really happened, it’s sort of a > meaningless check and balance. And this is not without consequence, as > we’ve sometimes had internal differences within our contingent that have > arguably undermined our effectiveness and credibility in the eyes of the > community and staff, and can even allow our various business stakeholder > group counterparts to exploit the differences in order to push through what > they want in opposition to our common baseline views. So at a minimum, we > need to do better somehow at team coordination and make sure all our > Councilors know what each other is doing and why and so there’s no real > time surprises, especially during meetings with high stakes votes. > > > > Thoughts? > > > > Best > > > > Bill >