Questions to the GNSO Council Candidates

[Stephanie Perrin]

Yes, perhaps we should save some time to discuss on our next policy call?

cheers Stephanie


On 2017-08-18 01:59, Mamadou LO wrote:
> + 1 Mickael; Stephanie but very challenging as this UNIQUE document 
> has to be handled live permanently with required and updated contents. 
> It can be very usefull for our community as an communication tool but 
> managing it may required additional job from councilors or Secretariat..
> Just thoughts
> Mamadou
>
>
> Envoyé depuis mon smartphone Samsung Galaxy.
>
>
> -------- Message d'origine --------
> De : Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at MAIL.UTORONTO.CA>
> Date : 17/08/2017 14:46 (GMT+00:00)
> À : NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> Objet : Re: Questions to the GNSO Council Candidates
>
> 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/20170818/81f3f8db/attachment.htm>