Question from the Board and our answer

[Ken Herman]

Thanks Jean

 

I’ve created what I hope is an accessible google doc. 

 

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dFR6nBJ5xuSV1tEO6-gkrpemc3m0uPNpBwfObUsXMXM/edit?usp=sharing

 

Unfortunately the Board NCSG session conflicts with the NA space, so I will miss the session.

 

Ken

 

 

 

From: NCSG-Discuss <NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU> On Behalf Of Jean F. Quéralt
Sent: Monday, March 13, 2023 11:26 AM
To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
Subject: Re: Question from the Board and our answer

 

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 <mailto: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/c19d4082/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ~WRD0000.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 823 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20230313/c19d4082/attachment.jpg>