ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

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

  • To: <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "'BC gnso'" <bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] FW: [council] Confirmation of new practice at face to face open council meetings
  • From: "Chris Chaplow" <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2009 06:24:11 +0100

I agree with Mike on this one.


Chris Chaplow
Managing Director
Andalucía.com S.L.
Avenida del Carmen 9
Ed. Puertosol, Puerto Deportivo
1ª Planta, Oficina 30
Estepona, 29680
Malaga, Spain
Tel: + (34) 952 897 865
Fax: + (34) 952 897 874
E-mail:  <mailto:chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Web:  <http://www.andalucia.com/> www.andalucia.com
Information about Andalucia, Spain.


De: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] En nombre de
Mike Rodenbaugh
Enviado el: domingo, 25 de octubre de 2009 5:10
Para: 'BC gnso'
Asunto: FW: [bc-gnso] FW: [council] Confirmation of new practice at face to
face open council meetings


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.




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


548 Market Street

San Francisco, CA  94104

=http://rodenbaugh.com/contact>  738-8087

http://rodenbaugh.com <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


2.  Issue Manager is responsible for the scribing/writing/presentation of


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.



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
548 Market Street
San Francisco, CA  94104
(415) 738-8087

-----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


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.


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





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?





Mike Rodenbaugh


548 Market Street

San Francisco, CA  94104

=http://rodenbaugh.com/contact> (415) 738-8087

 <http://rodenbaugh.com/> 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




Is this a CBUC request?





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.





Mike Rodenbaugh


548 Market Street

San Francisco, CA  94104

=http://rodenbaugh.com/contact>  738-8087

http://rodenbaugh.com <http://rodenbaugh.com/> 



<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy