Questions to the GNSO Council Candidates

[Stephanie Perrin]

I agree and think this is a good idea.  Sort of a running blog on how 
the issues are developing.  More work though, always a challenged for 
the over-stretched....

Stephanie Perrin


On 2017-08-17 10:39, Michael Karanicolas wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm still in the process of drafting my candidate statement, but I'd
> be happy to respond to Bill's queries in the interim.
>
> 1. Regarding meetings - although my travel schedule can get hectic
> sometimes, I should be able to commit to missing no more than two NCSG
> and Council calls, and I fully intend to be an active participant in
> them.
>
> 2. With regard to community engagement - this is something I've given
> some thought to, so I'd like to offer a bit of a twist on your
> proposal. While minutes are a useful update for people already
> familiar with the topics and issues under discussion, they make it
> very difficult for people who haven't been consistently tuned into the
> process to "catch up" to where we are, and even more challenging for
> new arrivals (as I certainly found myself!). As a result, I would
> suggest that a good alternative might be to create thematic "living
> documents" which are updated after every meeting. When an issue is
> raised first, you create a Google doc with a few lines introducing the
> issue, and then after every meeting a rep updates the documents for
> each issue under discussion. This creates a one stop shop for
> community members who want to see where debate stands on a particular
> issue, and allows people to trace how the conversation evolved - to
> better participate themselves. Just an idea.
>
> Best,
>
> Michael
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 11:16 AM, Tatiana Tropina
> <tatiana.tropina at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Dear Bill, dear NCSG members,
>>
>> why my candidate statement is still on its way, I am happy to answer Bill's
>> questions - but firstly to thank him for asking them! Please find my reply
>> in line.
>>
>>> 1.  Can you commit to missing no more than two NCSG and Council calls, and
>>> in the latter case to ensuring you give apologies and get a proxy at least a
>>> day prior to the meetings?  (if there are technical issues with attendance
>>> those would need to be planned for)  And since silent attendance is really
>>> not enough, can you indicate what you would do to be a visibly active and
>>> effective participant?
>>
>> I have quite a good record of attendance in the groups I have been active
>> at, such as CCWG Accountability WS2 Human Rights, NCSG EC calls (be it just
>> a EC call or budget discussions or bylaws drafting meetings), and others. As
>> the GNSO calls are known well in advance, it's easy to plan the time and
>> secure attendance. Even with my travel schedule, I was able to attend the
>> most important calls on the regular basis. One of the weirdest cases was
>> attending the CCWG WS2 HR call in the evening from the main square in
>> Tallinn on a public WiFi network, because even though I sent my apologies I
>> felt like the call was too important to miss and I connected anyway :-).
>>
>> So, yes, I can commit to do my best to attend the calls and my track record
>> proves that once I am committed. I can commit to appointing a proxy well in
>> advance if I have to miss something due to any scheduling conflicts. But I
>> will do my best to avoid any scheduling conflicts.
>>
>> Furthermore, I fully understand that just attendance is *not* enough.
>>
>> I decided to accept the nomination because I think we need vocal and
>> participating councillors -- and that's what I want to be. I think many of
>> you who kow me from IG and ICANN spaces can believe that I am vocal,
>> committed, and passionate about work.
>>
>> This commitment has two dimensions for me: first of all, it's taking part in
>> the Council's work and be vocal there -- not only at the ICANN meetings or
>> on the calls, but also in between the calls, on the mailing lists, etc.
>> Well, I think we all are going to make such a promise. My promise can be
>> supported by the evidence of my work on the policy committee (before I
>> became NCUC EC member because I had to resign due to NCUC EC position), my
>> work in CCWG accountability WS1 and WS2, CCWG-IG, my commitment to NCUC
>> outreach, to NCUC procedures and bylaws drafting teams, and other tracks of
>> record. I am fully committed to do be present and to be active at the
>> Council.
>>
>> The second dimension is link between the Council and NCSG membership and
>> NCSG policy committee (PC). I was a policy committee member already as NCUC
>> representative, and I was active there. Right now since a few days am back
>> on the PC and I am taking part in PC deliberations again -- feels great to
>> be back :-). If elected, I will continue and can commit to having a good
>> track of this activity. Furthermore, I understand that it is also about
>> informing the membership about policy development processes, public
>> comments, help in drafting the comments, help to observe the deadlines etc.
>> I can commit to this too. I will do my best to contribute to the
>> communications between councillors and NCSG membership -- I have already
>> seen the good practices established, for example, by Rafik. He informs
>> members about GNSO processes and decisions and I am going to take an active
>> part in this activity.
>>
>> This goes well with your second question, because it's the part of
>> communication between the councillors and the NCSG membership:
>>>
>>> 2. While interested members can read the Minutes of Council meetings at
>>> https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar to see which of their
>>> Councilors attended and what was discussed, a) people often don’t have the
>>> time, and b) the minutes don’t provide an assessment of how things are going
>>> from an NCSG standpoint.  After-meeting reporting to the membership on the
>>> issues and votes would be helpful, and should be routinized. We tried doing
>>> this with volunteers but only got a couple reports (much appreciated).  So,
>>> would you be willing to rotate the responsibility among our six Councilors
>>> and ensure every meeting gets at least a two paragraph report, ideally with
>>> some indication as to whether the contingent is coordinating and in
>>> agreement or not on particularly hot topics?
>>
>> I am absolutely ready to commit to writing a report based on rotation and
>> also -- if necessary -- contribute to any report even if it's not my turn to
>> write it. I think this shouldn't be a problem for active councillors and
>> it's time to commit to the promises we make before elections. And here you
>> all can have my full commitment (and hold me responsible for this promise).
>>
>>
>> Warm regards,
>> Tatiana
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks much
>>>
>>> Bill
>>>
>>> On Aug 19, 2016, at 12:03, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> Yesterday’s call provided a useful opportunity for dialogue on the
>>> candidates’ views and priorities and also turned out to offer some folks a
>>> chance to start clearing the air, however uncomfortably, regarding issues
>>> that arose within our Council contingent the last cycle.  I’d like to
>>> suggest a couple take-aways in hopes that we can re-set that which needs to
>>> be and move forward on a firmer footing.  Purely my own views, which I guess
>>> some folks will disagree with, in which case fine, let’s talk it out.
>>>
>>> 1.  Differences of perspective among Councilors are fine but these should
>>> be openly shared in order to preserve trust. It might make sense for the
>>> interested parties to find some congenial space in which to privately work
>>> through past bits of friction that arose re: e.g. Marrakech, the GNSO chair
>>> selection, and whatever else.  It doesn’t make sense to leave
>>> misunderstandings unresolved and entrenched as it can impact on the
>>> effectiveness of the team effort going forward. Hyderabad obviously offers
>>> F2F options, which are likely to be the most productive in coming to
>>> resolutions, but it might make sense not to wait entirely on this.
>>>
>>> 2. It would be helpful if Councilors could be sure to attend the monthly
>>> NCSG calls and proactively share their thinking about upcoming Council
>>> meetings and votes with each other and the wider membership.  In ancient
>>> times when I was on Council we regarded these as fairly mandatory and tried
>>> to miss only exceptionally and with notification, but more recently
>>> participation seems to have be spottier at times (I believe the NCSG chair
>>> has attendance records?).  Yes we’re all volunteers with day jobs and
>>> travels so things can happen, but it shouldn’t be the case that people miss
>>> more than a couple per annual cycle.
>>>
>>> 3. In parallel, it’d be good to have greater open discussion of pending
>>> votes and positions on the NCSG PC mail list.  I’ve been on that list since
>>> we set it up in 2011 (first as a Councilor, then as an observer) and think
>>> it’s under-utilized resource that should work in synch with our monthly
>>> calls and those of the Council.  Of course, issues should not always be
>>> sorted purely on an internal PC basis; important policy choices at least
>>> should also be vetted on ncsg-discuss so the PC is well informed by a feel
>>> for general member sentiment, even if it’s divided.
>>>
>>> Either way, between the monthly calls and the PC, we shouldn’t have cases
>>> where members of the team don’t know until they arrive at a Council meeting
>>> how their colleagues will vote, or what contacts and representations of the
>>> group’s shared positions are being made to other stakeholder groups, etc.
>>> You can’t have a team effort if people are unaware of each others’ doings.
>>>
>>> 4.  Part of the PC’s challenge has always been to ensure effective
>>> chairing, including tracking of progress on open projects, herding cats,
>>> etc.  We’ve always appointed Councilors to chair but the results have been
>>> variable as people are already maxed out.  On yesterday’s call Ed made a
>>> suggestion that merits consideration: having a non-Council member as chair,
>>> and allocating one of the NCSG travel slots to this person so as to promote
>>> their continuous coordination of the process.  It’d be interesting to hear
>>> views on this.
>>>
>>> 5.  After-meeting reporting to the membership of the issues and votes
>>> should be routinized.  This doesn’t have involve demanding magnum opus
>>> treatments, a couple paragraphs one a month should be sufficient and doable.
>>> I’d suggested (below) that the six Councilors could rotate the
>>> responsibility, as was briefly attempted in 2009-2010.  Stephanie
>>> counter-proposed on the call that reporting be done by non-Councilors, in
>>> part as a way of on-boarding ‘new blood’ and helping to prepare folks to
>>> stand for Council in a future election.  This could work too, although it
>>> may involve some extra coordination to ensure every Councilors’ votes and
>>> views are reflected to taste.  Worth a try…
>>>
>>> If we could do at least some of this, I think it’d increase our team’s
>>> solidarity and our general members’ understanding of what their
>>> representative are up to, what’s in play in the GNSO, and what the
>>> opportunities for engaging in working groups and such are.  It’d also make
>>> our votes in elections more well informed.
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>>
>>> Bill
>>>
>>>
>>> On Aug 17, 2016, at 10:39, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> On Aug 16, 2016, at 23:38, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20170817/073a762a/attachment.htm>