Question from the Board and our answer

[Tomslin Samme-Nlar]

Hi Farzi,

Tha ks for these initial thoughts.

I totally agree with your point on the board refraining from re-opening
issues. In fact, that is somewhat the Council’s position as well and the
Council will be mentioning this as well to the board during their meeting.

There is a significant difference between an internal council small team
and a community-wide process that might be put together to contribute to
policy development in an attempt to be "agile".  Such a process risk
circumventing the GNSO policy development procedures and eroding the role
of the GNSO.

I also agree with Stephanie that we should mention the need for more
transparency from the Council small team as well.

Warmly,
Tomslin

On Mon, 13 Mar 2023, 08:21 farzaneh badii, <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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/20230313/6cb97835/attachment.htm>