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
>