Question from the Board and our answer

[farzaneh badii]

All,
We have an NCSG board meeting today and the Board is asking a peculiar
question:

“The ICANN Board would like to explore how to
combine the efficiencies of an agile approach to problem solving, like
the Council’s small teams, with the need for accountability and
transparency, to make progress on policy conversations. When would such
an approach be most appropriate and how can we ensure that it does not
circumvent required steps in a policy development process? »

We discussed this during the NCSG meeting yesterday. In a nutshell we don't
think an "agile approach" that is not predicted in the bylaws is
appropriate at all. If the Board wants to make the processes more efficient
and effective, they can refrain from re-opening the issues and rehashing
the policy recommendations that we make in policy development processes.
Also adding layers and layers of implementation and enforcement processes
such as ODAs don't help with efficiency. Unfortunately the push for
efficiency and the board desire to re-open issues or be creative in
resolving unsolved matters has led to creating processes that are ad hoc
and might not be in accordance with the bylaws. One such group that the
board created and we objected to is the group on closed generics. (*we need
to discuss this point)*

*this is my opinion which we can discuss:*
The Council's small teams are not "agile processes". They are internal
processes that don't violate the bylaws because the small teams don't make
the decision, they just lay the groundwork for decision-making at the
council level and they have to discuss all the issues with the council.

Please weigh in so that we can wrap it up by 3 PM. Also what's with the
obsession with the word "agile". Somebody got an MBA recently and went to a
WEF meeting?




Farzaneh
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20230313/9ac24d7d/attachment.htm>