Question from the Board and our answer

[Jean F. Quéralt]

Hi Farzaneh et al.

+1 on your comments.

Ken's text sounds like a good approach. Would have wanted to propose some
changes yet it's late and I need to get some hours before a session that
will be at 05:30 my time.

+1 on all David's points.

+1 on Stephanie's point that small teams should NOT have closed meetings.

Sending 🔋🔋🔋 for the meeting.

Cheers
Jean F. Queralt
Founder & CEO - The IO Foundation <http://www.TheIOFoundation.org>
Book a meeting <http://TIOF.Click/BookJFQ> (30 minutes)


On Mon, 13 Mar 2023 at 21:21, 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
>

-- 
**DISCLAIMER**
*The content of this message, which may contain personal or 
sensitive data, is confidential. If you have received it by mistake, please 
inform the sender by replying to the email and then permanently delete the 
message, including any attachments. It is forbidden to copy, forward or in 
any way reveal the content of this message to anyone. The integrity and 
security of this email cannot be guaranteed over the Internet and, 
therefore, the sender will not be held liable for any damage caused by the 
message.*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20230313/638d635a/attachment.htm>