Question from the Board and our answer

[Ephraim Percy Kenyanito]

I would agree with both Tomslin, Stephanie and Farzi,

Best Regards,

Ephraim Percy Kenyanito

On 13/03/2023 18:01, Tomslin Samme-Nlar wrote:
> 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/20230313/6782fcc0/attachment.htm>