Re: [bc-gnso] FW: [council] Confirmation of new practice at face to face open council meetings

[Liz Williams <lizawilliams@xxxxxxx>]

Mike

It's helpful to be flexible in these situations and I think that the  
"system" needs to incorporate Issue Managers on a predictable and  
normal basis.  People who work in Working Groups and Taskforces become  
natural experts and need a formalised platform to share their work.   
That is a good development which does not preclude Councillors doing  
their job on Council.  It helps them in working group situations.
This isn't the UN or APEC TEL or the OECD -- that's where we would  
worry about scalability.  It is small numbers of people working a wide  
range of complex issues.
Limiting the "table" to Councillors and Issues Managers is a mid way  
point between having the open slather which is currently the case and  
Councillors only.  I'd suggest that the BC is in a position to be the  
leader here and that we should talk about the best way forward for  
working sessions tonight.
Best wishes.

Liz
On 25 Oct 2009, at 03:48, Mike Rodenbaugh wrote:

> Hi Liz,
>
> I appreciate the thinking here, but still believe it is not  
> scalable.  It is clearly appropriate for any Councilor to allow  
> anyone else to speak on their or their Constituency’s behalf during  
> a Council meeting for a limited time or purpose.  Councilors can  
> also raise comments or questions posed by others, of course.  Just  
> like I can forward an email from any constituent to the Council  
> email list.  Input from members is ALWAYS welcome, it just ought not  
> be input directly to Council for many hopefully obvious reasons.
> All,
>
> I will not be responding further to the recent email from Mike  
> Palage or Ron Andruff on this topic, as sufficient response is  
> contained in my prior email to this List, today and previously.   
> Namely, Michael Palage’s ‘conflict of interest’ allegation was  
> earlier raised by George Kirikos, and I consider it frivolous for  
> the reasons stated during that interchange, particularly that any  
> purported conflict was fully disclosed long before my last   
> election, and has no impact on my efforts on behalf of the BC.  The  
> email from Ron also overlooks the fact that I have been elected to  
> represent the BC on Council.  While I appreciate the desire to  
> always speak one’s mind openly at Council meetings, the Council  
> appears nearly unanimous that this privilege is not scalable, not  
> fair, has caused detriment to the efficiency and output of the  
> Council, and therefore has been discontinued.
> Mike Rodenbaugh
> RODENBAUGH LAW
> 548 Market Street
> San Francisco, CA  94104
> (415) 738-8087
> http://rodenbaugh.com
>
>
>
>
> From: Liz Williams [mailto:lizawilliams@xxxxxxx]
> Sent: Saturday, October 24, 2009 8:03 PM
> To: icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] FW: [council] Confirmation of new practice at  
> face to face open council meetings
> Hello Mike
>
> I'm sympathetic to the issues you've raised particularly as the  
> weekend sessions are really working drafting sessions.
> I've had some experience of this in other environments and would  
> like to suggest a middle ground which may help over-worked  
> Councillors.
> We have proposed an Issue Manager/Rapporteur system in the new  
> Charter and I suggest that anyone who volunteers to do work on  
> issues (whatever they are) ought to be at the table as well.  This  
> helps new members/volunteers become experienced at dealing with a  
> wide range of issues in great detail.  It is also a supportive  
> position for the Councillors.  It spreads the work around and also  
> maximises the use of different skills in the group (for example,  
> some are better on technical issues than legal drafting or  
> intellectual property or competition).
> For example, it would probably work something like (and I'll use me  
> as a hypothetical) this.
> 1.  Councillors are at the table supported by me (the Issue Manager)  
> on ABC issue.
> 2.  Issue Manager is responsible for the scribing/writing/ 
> presentation of materials.
> 3.  Councillors are there to link different issues and positions  
> together and take that to Council.
> This strengthens our work with diverse voices and volunteers taking  
> responsibility who are "rewarded" with a seat the table.
> Best wishes.
>
> Liz
> On 25 Oct 2009, at 01:18, Mike Rodenbaugh wrote:
>
>
> Fyi below from the Council Chair, in response to the attached email  
> string
> begun by me, and subsequent discussion of Council this morning.  I  
> have had
> these very strong feelings for a long time now, and various less  
> formal
> efforts to remedy the situation have not been effective.
>
> The Council appears nearly unanimous in support of the concept that
> Councilors should be given every opportunity to speak at Council  
> meetings,
> and any public comment periods within the weekend meetings will be
> structured more as they are in the large public Council meetings  
> held on
> Wednesday of the ICANN meetings.  This is an effort to make Council  
> more
> efficient, and to allow Councilors to do their jobs without constant
> interruptions from non-representative individuals.  Of course, there  
> are
> many other opportunities for such individuals to voice their  
> comments and
> questions through the GNSO's bottom-up, open and transparent policy
> development practices, including the BC's internal practices.
>
> Mike Rodenbaugh
> RODENBAUGH LAW
> 548 Market Street
> San Francisco, CA  94104
> (415) 738-8087
> http://rodenbaugh.com
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> ] On
> Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Saturday, October 24, 2009 5:37 PM
> To: Council GNSO
> Subject: [council] Confirmation of new practice at face to face open  
> council
> meetings
>
>
> Hi.
>
> After this mornings meeting I wanted to confirm several actions that  
> I took
> away from the meeting:
>
> 1. the seats at the table for open council meetings will be reserved  
> for
> council members, liaisons and relevant staff.  Chair, vice-chair
> (s) and staff will request that others take the observers seats.   
> For future
> meetings name placards will be requested to those to be seated at  
> the table.
> 2. the observers will be requested to queue at the microphones, and  
> the
> chair will be responsible for giving them the floor at appropriate  
> points,
> though precedence for speaking will be given to those around the  
> table.
> 3. any further changes to the practices at open meetings will be  
> discussed
> by the new council at its discretion.
>
> Please let me know if I have misinterpreted the will of that meeting.
>
> a.
>
> From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: 24 October 2009 23:50:08 BST
> To: <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "GNSO Council" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: RE: [council] End of the Shadow Council
>
>
> Thanks Mike.  Maybe we will have time to discuss this in our  
> breakfast meeting.
> Chuck
>
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> ] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh
> Sent: Saturday, October 24, 2009 5:42 PM
> To: GNSO Council
> Subject: RE: [council] End of the Shadow Council
>
> Hi Chuck,
> This is not a policy development issue, but instead is  
> administrative.  I have twice been elected to represent the BC in  
> Council administrative matters.  Specifically per our Charter  
> section 4.1, “[t]he representatives will act in the GNSO Council as  
> representatives of and spokespersons for the Constituency and will  
> collaborate with other members of the Council in pursuit of the  
> mission of the Constituency.”
> I am only trying to discontinue an unwarranted privilege by which  
> unrepresentative persons increasingly usurp the role of  
> representative Councilors and Liaisons, and which unduly takes time  
> from the entire Council and Staff.
> Do you have any reasoned argument against this?
>
> Thanks,
> Mike
>
> Mike Rodenbaugh
> RODENBAUGH LAW
> 548 Market Street
> San Francisco, CA  94104
> (415) 738-8087
> http://rodenbaugh.com
>
>
>
>
> From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Saturday, October 24, 2009 2:15 PM
> To: icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; GNSO Council
> Subject: RE: [council] End of the Shadow Council
>
> Mike,
>
> Is this a CBUC request?
>
> Chuck
>
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> ] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh
> Sent: Saturday, October 24, 2009 4:42 PM
> To: GNSO Council
> Subject: [council] End of the Shadow Council
>
> Dear Colleagues,
>
> I write again regarding the so-called “Observers” at face-to-face  
> GNSO Council meetings.
> Of course, I fully support that our face-to-face meetings are  
> generally always open to true observers, both those present and  
> located remotely.  And I fully support that all of our meetings are  
> generally fully recorded and transcribed.  Indeed I think they  
> should be translated, and that our conference calls be opened in  
> real time to the public, with non-speaking access.  I fully support  
> that our email list is open and archived.  All of this allows the  
> public to see how the Council operates in practically real-time, and  
> to experience the information and debate first-hand.  Council must  
> have flexibility to close its sessions and/or communicate privately,  
> when it deems necessary for any stated and agreed reason.  But I  
> believe that has never happened to date, and of course the default  
> must be open meetings and open communications.
> However, the growing trend is for GNSO “Observers” to participate in  
> the Council’s weekend face-to-face meetings on equal footing with  
> Councilors, Liasons and Staff.  A small and growing group of  
> privileged observers, none of whom are elected or appointed to  
> represent anyone but themselves and/or their specific organizations,  
> are increasingly taking an inordinate amount of Council and Staff  
> time.  In effect, they are a “Shadow Council” that follows the  
> Council from meeting to meeting, taking advantage of a privilege  
> they ought not have.  This must stop, effective immediately.
> It is not scalable as the community of interested observers grows  
> and diversifies.  It is not fair in any way:
> n  Not fair to Councilors and Liasons who offer great personal  
> sacrifice to travel long distances away from their lives,  
> volunteering an overly full weekend in advance of a lengthy five-day  
> meeting.
> n  Not fair to the constituents who elected or appointed the  
> Councilors and Liasons, expecting that they (and only they) would  
> serve as those constituents’ representatives on Council.
> n  Not fair to the general public whose only opportunities for input  
> to Council are via the Constituencies, Working Groups or public  
> comment periods.  Particularly not fair to the general public that  
> does not speak English, or who cannot attend the sessions, as they  
> have no equal ability to participate vis a vis the “Shadow Council”.
> n  Not fair to the Staff nor the Council as a whole, whose only  
> opportunity to communicate face-to-face is during these meetings.
> The GNSO Council is a representative body.  The representative  
> Councilors and designated Liaisons must be allowed to do their jobs,  
> which absolutely requires face-to-face interaction with Staff and  
> with each other -- without constant ‘clarifying questions’, ‘points  
> of order’, comments or questions from the public.    To my  
> knowledge, no other SO, nor the GAC nor the Board – nor any other  
> council, committee or board anywhere in the world -- ever allow such  
> privilege to observers.  Such points should be raised through  
> Council representatives, or during any or all of the many  
> opportunities for public comment into the Council processes.  Indeed  
> this is the reason-for-being of the Constituencies themselves, of  
> Working Groups, of public comment periods in general, and of the  
> public comment periods allowed at the Council’s face-to-face  
> meetings (which can also be used in our weekend sessions, if time  
> allows).
> Therefore, beginning with the newTLD session today, I request that  
> observers be disallowed equal access to the Council table and  
> microphones, just as they are disallowed such access at our larger  
> public meetings and in our conference calls.  The material presented  
> by Staff in the session today will doubtless be repeated during a  
> public session later in the week, which is a perfect opportunity for  
> anyone to ask their questions or make their points directly to the  
> Staff, without wasting tremendously valuable and scarce face-to-face  
> Council/Staff time.  As we have seen, too many people are abusing  
> the privilege of open access to raise points that they then raise  
> again and again at every opportunity throughout the ICANN meeting,  
> and/or to communicate their particular, non-representative  
> interests.  They are abusing a privilege that they should not have  
> in the first place, because it is not fair.
> Does anyone have an argument as to why the current privilege should  
> be allowed to continue?  Is anyone aware of any other council, board  
> or committee, anywhere in the world, that allows such a privilege to  
> observers?
> Otherwise, I hope the privilege will be discontinued immediately,  
> and request Avri to confirm via reply to this list.  If not, my next  
> effort to stop this will be an Ombudsman complaint, on behalf of the  
> entire community, so that this practice is investigated by a neutral  
> party and discussed formally at the Council and/or Board level(s).   
> I also request that the relevant OSC team discuss this and recommend  
> appropriate provisions in our Council Rules of Procedure to ensure  
> that nobody is given undue and disruptive access to Council,  
> Liaisons and Staff during our meetings.
> Each and every member of the community – other than the “Shadow  
> Councilors” and their specific organizations -- suffer from the  
> continuation of this unwarranted and unseemly privilege that offered  
> to just a few, at the expense of the many.
> Sincerely,
> Mike
>
> Mike Rodenbaugh
> RODENBAUGH LAW
> 548 Market Street
> San Francisco, CA  94104
> (415) 738-8087
> http://rodenbaugh.com