<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">I agree. The policy
meeting is supposed to coordinate positions prior to the
Council meeting, but it is tough even getting the important
issues squeezed into the call, and few participate. Maybe
what we need is an open council wiki where we can talk about
what we are doing? <br>
</font></font></p>
<p><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">Stephanie Perrin</font></font><br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2016-08-17 4:46, James Gannon wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:BF714DBD-1598-4351-845B-42B246847A5D@cyberinvasion.net"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<div>
<div>
<div>Hey Bill</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>As I think some people here know I have asked for greater
accountability of our councillors in the past, specially on
coordination and ensuring that they are reflecting the views
of the NCSG and not just their personal positions, as when
we get into situations of personal attempts to become
political players (And usually fail) we do our whole
community a disservice.</div>
</div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I would like to build on your below and ask, how are the
candidates planning on upholding the integrity of the NCSG, will
they make a pledge not to attempt to go rogue and to perform a
coordinated vote when asked to? Will they pledge to work with
the NCSG and not against it and not to engage in actions that
may put us all at risk of losing our credibility. We need our
councillors to be out in public telling us what they are doing
and why they are doing it and I think that’s something that we
are really bad at at the moment. Looking back over this list we
have extremely few messages from our councillors as a whole, and
I think that that is not good enough. For our elected
representatives one message every few weeks or months doesn’t
really cut it in my opinion. We need more accountability, more
communication and more openness in what our representatives are
doing on our behalf I think.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>-James</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<span id="OLK_SRC_BODY_SECTION">
<div style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:12pt;
text-align:left; color:black; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none;
BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; PADDING-LEFT:
0in; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; BORDER-TOP: #b5c4df 1pt solid;
BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-TOP: 3pt">
<span style="font-weight:bold">From: </span>NCSG-Discuss <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU">NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a>>
on behalf of William Drake <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:wjdrake@GMAIL.COM">wjdrake@GMAIL.COM</a>><br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Reply-To: </span>William Drake
<<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:wjdrake@GMAIL.COM">wjdrake@GMAIL.COM</a>><br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Date: </span>Wednesday 17
August 2016 at 09:39<br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">To: </span>"<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU">NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a>"
<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU">NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a>><br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Subject: </span>Proposed Items
for the Meet the Candidates call tomorrow: Transparency and
coordination in Council<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space;
-webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class="">
Hi
<div class=""><br class="">
<div>
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">On Aug 16, 2016, at 23:38, Robin Gross
<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:robin@ipjustice.org" class="">robin@ipjustice.org</a>>
wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<div class=""><span style="font-family: Verdana;
font-size: 18px; font-style: normal;
font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal;
letter-spacing: normal; orphans: auto; text-align:
start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none;
white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing:
0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; float: none;
display: inline !important;" class="">Agreed. It
is important for members to become more acquainted
with our representatives and resumes are extremely
helpful for that.</span></div>
</blockquote>
<br class="">
</div>
<div>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:</div>
<div><br class="">
</div>
<div>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.</div>
<div><br class="">
</div>
<div>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.</div>
<br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Thoughts?</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Best</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Bill</div>
</div>
</div>
</span>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>