RE: [gnso-opencouncilmtg-dt] Open Council Meeting Drafting Team

[Adrian Kinderis <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Also,

With respect to allowing Council to have motions and public input on them.

Honestly, we know what we are going to vote going into a meeting. If not, we 
punt. The public comment could not be included in our decision making because 
we would need to go bac to our stakeholders to get their permission.

Commenting on motions prior to a vote is a waste of time.

Adrian Kinderis
Chief Executive Officer
AusRegistry International Pty Ltd
Level 8, 10 Queens Road
Melbourne. Victoria Australia. 3004
Ph: +61 3 9866 3710
Fax: +61 3 9866 1970
Email: adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Web: www.ausregistry.com

- Follow AusRegistry International on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ausregistryint

The information contained in this communication is intended for the named 
recipients only. It is subject to copyright and may contain legally privileged 
and confidential information and if you are not an intended recipient you must 
not use, copy, distribute or take any action in reliance on it. If you have 
received this communication in error, please delete all copies from your system 
and notify us immediately.



-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-opencouncilmtg-dt@xxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-gnso-opencouncilmtg-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of William Drake
Sent: Friday, 8 July 2011 6:11 AM
To: gnso-opencouncilmtg-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-opencouncilmtg-dt] Open Council Meeting Drafting Team



Hi all,

My bottom line position on this remains as stated in Singapore:  we should 
revision these sessions as public engagement opportunities in the first 
instance, and organize our workflow in the weeks prior to clear the decks of 
all but the most "big ticket" motions and related debates that are likely to be 
of particular interest to the broader community.  This goes double for 
intra-Council process matters.  I'm happy to see that there seems to be some 
emerging consensus on this orientation here.  So on to the more specific 
suggestions made to date:

*As Jeff notes, we'll still need a space to get work done, whether it's key 
motions the need a public sounding, elections, etc.  So on an experimental 
basis, how's about the next time we do a 50/50 split, two hour Public Forum, 
two hour Open Council Meeting?   Obviously, the agendas of both would need to 
be sorted well in advance with comments invited etc.

*I think both should be transcribed, this is important to transparency 
accountability inclusion blah blah.

*I'd support Mary's general Open Mic section, so long as there are some clear 
ground rules to avoid anyone bogarting the joint or otherwise taking us off 
into la la land.

*I very much like Adrian's idea of setting aside a chunk of time to hear from 
each SG/C.  This seems very consistent with the larger purposes of Council 
reform etc.   Aside from affording SG/C's the opportunity to hear about and 
better understand their counterparts' current activities and main concerns, the 
need to focus minds and prepare such presentations could prove beneficial 
within the SG/Cs as well.

*Yes, outreach to other parts of the community, including Fellows and other 
newbies, would be important. What precisely this may entail would merit some 
consideration.  (On a related note, at some point shouldn't we circle back to 
consider how to improve communication & coordination with the GAC?)

Cheers

BD


On Jul 8, 2011, at 2:07 AM, Neuman, Jeff wrote:

>
> I think all of this sounds well and good and like the ideas coming out.  But, 
> if we do not hold a formal meeting in this slot, when will we take care of 
> the motions and other business items that will invariably come out.  I know 
> they may be tedious, but with 4 weeks in between meetings now, if we do not 
> take required actions, then we will have 8 weeks before business can be done.
>
> We also need to remember that the annual meeting is a significant one where 
> we will need to elect a chair and vice chair and seat the new council at the 
> end.  This year, unlike last, the hope is that we have the incoming 
> councillors elect the chair and vice chair as opposed to the outgoing council.
>
> So, i am all for opening up the meetings to interpretive dance as Adrian puts 
> it, but let's reserve some time for work to get done.  We also should have 
> more time doing the tedious items like crafting motions. I don't know if that 
> means having a closed workshop for just councillors to do that like the board 
> or whether we do that in the open at another session.
>
> Jeffrey J. Neuman
> Vice President, Law and Policy
> Neustar, Inc
> Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx
> P: 571-434-5772
> M: 202-549-5079
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From:         Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2011 06:27 PM Eastern Standard Time
> To:
> Cc:   'gnso-opencouncilmtg-dt@xxxxxxxxx'
> Subject:      RE: [gnso-opencouncilmtg-dt] Open Council Meeting Drafting Team
>
> Thanks, Adrian, John and everyone, for getting us off to such a good start 
> with plenty of suggestions!
>
> I like Adrian's idea of calling it the GNSO Public Forum, rather than the 
> Open Council Meeting. If we also incorporate some of the other excellent 
> suggestions, we may yet be able to increase audience participation and 
> engagement at the session. Hopefully this will not only provide the GNSO 
> community with an opportunity to give direct feedback and suggestions, it 
> will also allow the Council to interact directly with both active, regular 
> GNSO participants as well as newer entrants and other members of the ICANN 
> community outside the GNSO.
>
> To that end, may I bring up a previous suggestion (I forget by who, sorry) 
> that we do a general Open Mic at the beginning of the meeting? This can 
> supplement the regular, shorter Open Mic minutes that Adrian has suggested 
> interspersing with the topical discussions throughout the meeting (on the 
> assumption that these other open mics will be geared more toward the specific 
> topic under discussion).
>
> I also support Adrian's ideas that (1) we discuss future motions at the 
> Public Forum, and solicit feedback from the community; and (2) each SG/C (as 
> appropriate) give a short update (especially since the Public Forum will take 
> place after Constituency Day).
>
> Additionally, I'd like to suggest that we invite, and actively seek the 
> participation of, other ICANN groups and participants. In particular, I think 
> it would be useful to extend a welcome to ICANN Fellows and other newbies 
> (and in this respect, the Briefing Papers we had discussed a while ago ca be 
> very helpful).
>
> Cheers
> Mary
>
>
>
> Mary W S Wong
> Professor of Law
> Chair, Graduate IP Programs
> Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP
> UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW
> Two White Street
> Concord, NH 03301
> USA
> Email: mary.wong@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Phone: 1-603-513-5143
> Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php
> Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: 
> http://ssrn.com/author=437584
>>>>
> From:         Liz Gasster <liz.gasster@xxxxxxxxx>
> To:    Adrian Kinderis <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, 
> "john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> CC:    "'gnso-opencouncilmtg-dt@xxxxxxxxx'" 
> <gnso-opencouncilmtg-dt@xxxxxxxxx>, Glen de Saint Géry<Glen@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date:         7/7/2011 3:14 PM
> Subject:      RE: [gnso-opencouncilmtg-dt] Open Council Meeting Drafting Team
>
> Hi Adrian,
>
>
>
> Thanks so much for the amplification.  I find it very helpful, and I'm 
> excited by your ideas to engage the audience more!  Best, Liz
>
>
>
> From: Adrian Kinderis [mailto:adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2011 11:53 AM
> To: Liz Gasster; john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: 'gnso-opencouncilmtg-dt@xxxxxxxxx'; Glen de Saint Géry
> Subject: RE: [gnso-opencouncilmtg-dt] Open Council Meeting Drafting Team
>
>
>
> Thanks Liz.
>
>
>
> I suppose I see the public meetings more as an opportunity to engage our 
> audience. We cannot do this if we are constrained by the usual practices of 
> motions etc.
>
>
>
> We have plenty of opportunity for these in our usual meetings.
>
>
>
> Let's not call it a Public Meeting at all and call it the GNSO update and 
> public forum.
>
>
>
> I think the current public meeting has an identity crisis.
>
>
>
> Why do let people interact with the Council. We don't let them at any other 
> time during our usual meetings. Instead we do this "tacked on" version where 
> we ask for public comment randomly. The comment very rarely helps with 
> discussion and doesn't drive any healthy debate.
>
>
>
> The other point is that if you have motions you really constrain the 
> discussion to that topic. I'd prefer to provide a broad cross section of 
> discussion around the entire Council's work.
>
>
>
> With respect to transcription, once again I would ask why is it in place? Do 
> we transcribe all our other meetings? Why is this one so special? I was 
> thinking that if we move to a "workshop" style meeting that the transcription 
> simply woudln;t be necessary.
>
>
>
> Once again, these are just my thoughts as I write (I am horribly jetlagged 
> and not sure I am making any sense whatsoever!).
>
>
>
> Adrian Kinderis
> Chief Executive Officer
>
> AusRegistry International Pty Ltd
> Level 8, 10 Queens Road
> Melbourne. Victoria Australia. 3004
> Ph: +61 3 9866 3710
> Fax: +61 3 9866 1970
> Email: adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Web: www.ausregistry.com <http://www.ausregistryinternational.com/>
>
>
>
> - Follow AusRegistry International on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ausregistryint 
> <http://www.twitter.com/ausregistryint>
>
>
>
> The information contained in this communication is intended for the named 
> recipients only. It is subject to copyright and may contain legally 
> privileged and confidential information and if you are not an intended 
> recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or take any action in reliance 
> on it. If you have received this communication in error, please delete all 
> copies from your system and notify us immediately.
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Liz Gasster [mailto:liz.gasster@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Thursday, 7 July 2011 12:20 PM
> To: john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Adrian Kinderis
> Cc: 'gnso-opencouncilmtg-dt@xxxxxxxxx'; Glen de Saint Géry
> Subject: RE: [gnso-opencouncilmtg-dt] Open Council Meeting Drafting Team
>
>
>
> Hi all,
>
>
>
> Glen is investigating why Adrian's post did not go through (thanks John for 
> helping to identify this problem).
>
>
>
> Adrian - I would find it helpful for you to expand a bit on why you suggest 
> that there not be a formal Council meeting, or motions, and that these 
> meetings not be transcribed.  I do understand your point about the need to 
> facilitate greater community discussion during the public meetings.  Are you 
> saying that you think not having a formal council meeting (without motions or 
> transcript) would help in that regard?  Just seeking to understand...
>
>
>
> Thanks so much!  Liz
>
>
>
> Ps. I'm also curious about "interpretive dance" in this context but I expect 
> we'll hear more on that!  thanks again...
>
>
>
>
>
> From: owner-gnso-opencouncilmtg-dt@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-opencouncilmtg-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
> john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2011 7:54 AM
> To: Adrian Kinderis
> Cc: 'gnso-opencouncilmtg-dt@xxxxxxxxx'; Glen de Saint Géry
> Subject: RE: [gnso-opencouncilmtg-dt] Open Council Meeting Drafting Team
>
>
>
> Yup.
>
>
>
> Berard
>
>       -------- Original Message --------
>       Subject: RE: [gnso-opencouncilmtg-dt] Open Council Meeting Drafting
>       Team
>       From: Adrian Kinderis <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> <mailto:adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >
>       Date: Thu, July 07, 2011 7:29 am
>       To: "'john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> '" 
> <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >,
>       'Glen_de_Saint_Géry' <Glen@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:Glen@xxxxxxxxx> >
>       Cc: "'gnso-opencouncilmtg-dt@xxxxxxxxx 
> <mailto:gnso-opencouncilmtg-dt@xxxxxxxxx> '"
>       <gnso-opencouncilmtg-dt@xxxxxxxxx 
> <mailto:gnso-opencouncilmtg-dt@xxxxxxxxx> >
>
>       Did everyone get this?
>
>
>
>       Adrian Kinderis
>       Chief Executive Officer
>
>       AusRegistry International Pty Ltd
>       Level 8, 10 Queens Road
>       Melbourne. Victoria Australia. 3004
>       Ph: +61 3 9866 3710
>       Fax: +61 3 9866 1970
>       Email: adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>       Web: www.ausregistry.com <http://www.ausregistryinternational.com/>
>
>
>
>       - Follow AusRegistry International on Twitter: 
> www.twitter.com/ausregistryint <http://www.twitter.com/ausregistryint>
>
>
>
>       The information contained in this communication is intended for the 
> named recipients only. It is subject to copyright and may contain legally 
> privileged and confidential information and if you are not an intended 
> recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or take any action in reliance 
> on it. If you have received this communication in error, please delete all 
> copies from your system and notify us immediately.
>
>
>
>
>
>       From: Adrian Kinderis
>       Sent: Wednesday, 6 July 2011 11:41 PM
>       To: john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> ; 
> Glen_de_Saint_Géry
>       Cc: gnso-opencouncilmtg-dt@xxxxxxxxx 
> <mailto:gnso-opencouncilmtg-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
>       Subject: RE: [gnso-opencouncilmtg-dt] Open Council Meeting Drafting Team
>
>
>
>       Here is a few quick bulletpointed points;
>
>
>
>       -          The meeting should not be a formal Council meeting
>
>       o    No motions
>
>       o    It should not be transcribed
>
>       -          The meeting could be more an update of the work that has 
> been/ is currently being completed since the last "public meeting"
>
>       -          Comments from the floor should be solicited continually 
> through the meeting
>
>       -          WG's should be encouraged to present their current issues/ 
> progress
>
>       o    They could solicit Council/ public input to any obstacles etc
>
>       -          Future motions could be discussed
>
>       o    This is where the good debate happens
>
>       -          A summary of the weekend sessions could be provided
>
>       -          Perhaps each stakeholder group could perform a short summary 
> of who they are and what their current concerns are
>
>
>
>       Does that help start with the thoughts.
>
>
>
>       Not particularly sexy... but that will come in the way we go about 
> performing the above (interpretive dance?)
>
>
>
>       Thanks.
>
>
>
>       Adrian Kinderis
>       Chief Executive Officer
>
>       AusRegistry International Pty Ltd
>       Level 8, 10 Queens Road
>       Melbourne. Victoria Australia. 3004
>       Ph: +61 3 9866 3710
>       Fax: +61 3 9866 1970
>       Email: adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>       Web: www.ausregistry.com <http://www.ausregistryinternational.com/>
>
>
>
>       - Follow AusRegistry International on Twitter: 
> www.twitter.com/ausregistryint <http://www.twitter.com/ausregistryint>
>
>
>
>       The information contained in this communication is intended for the 
> named recipients only. It is subject to copyright and may contain legally 
> privileged and confidential information and if you are not an intended 
> recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or take any action in reliance 
> on it. If you have received this communication in error, please delete all 
> copies from your system and notify us immediately.
>
>
>
>
>
>       From: owner-gnso-opencouncilmtg-dt@xxxxxxxxx 
> <mailto:owner-gnso-opencouncilmtg-dt@xxxxxxxxx>  
> [mailto:owner-gnso-opencouncilmtg-dt@xxxxxxxxx 
> <mailto:owner-gnso-opencouncilmtg-dt@xxxxxxxxx> ] On Behalf Of 
> john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>       Sent: Tuesday, 5 July 2011 8:41 PM
>       To: Glen_de_Saint_Géry
>       Cc: gnso-opencouncilmtg-dt@xxxxxxxxx 
> <mailto:gnso-opencouncilmtg-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
>       Subject: RE: [gnso-opencouncilmtg-dt] Open Council Meeting Drafting Team
>
>
>
>       Hey!
>
>
>
>       Perhaps I can prime the pump by re-posting my initial thoughts when 
> this effort was suggested.
>
>
>
>       By "design," I was thinking of everything from the way we are arranged, 
> in relation to each other and the public participants to shifting the 
> organization of our work to get people to the mic earlier to using the speed 
> of a consensus agenda (as does the Board) to help prioritize in a more 
> responsive way.
>
>
>
>       Feel free to pile on!
>
>
>
>       Berard
>
>               -------- Original Message --------
>               Subject: [gnso-opencouncilmtg-dt] Open Council Meeting Drafting 
> Team
>               From: Glen_de_Saint_Géry <Glen@xxxxxxxxx 
> <mailto:Glen@xxxxxxxxx> >
>               Date: Thu, June 23, 2011 6:17 pm
>               To: "gnso-opencouncilmtg-dt@xxxxxxxxx 
> <mailto:gnso-opencouncilmtg-dt@xxxxxxxxx> "
>               <gnso-opencouncilmtg-dt@xxxxxxxxx 
> <mailto:gnso-opencouncilmtg-dt@xxxxxxxxx> >
>
>
>
>               Dear All,
>
>               As agreed at the GNSO Council wrap-up meeting a small group has 
> been formed to revise the format of the open Council meetings.
>               The Open Council Meeting Drafting Team mailing list is up and 
> running.
>
>               As requested, the following people have been added to the list:
>
>               Stéphane Van Gelder
>               Adrian Kinderis
>               Zahid Jamil"
>               William Drake
>               Mary Wong
>               Jeff Neuman
>               John Berard
>
>               Please let me know whether you would like to be added to the 
> drafting team.
>               Thank you.
>               Kind regards,
>
>               Glen
>
>               Glen de Saint Géry
>               GNSO Secretariat
>               gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> <http://gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>               http://gnso.icann.org <http://gnso.icann.org>
>
>