[PC-NCSG] ICANN 53 Constituency Day - Seeking Feedback for ICANN board

[Sam Lanfranco]

I would like to follow up on the core of what Matthew and Edward are
pointing to here. We need a clear (in our minds) NCSG strategy as to
what we want to be the outcomes of our Board engagement. We need to
work through, in the open, an NCSG Board Engagement Strategy. The
encounters with small groups of Board members work well but (as
suggested) NCSG should focus on those Board members who do not know
us.

The goals should be to find commonalities and understand differences.
As for the open meetings with the whole Board, I am at a loss as to
know what to suggest, the appear to be (and are) mainly a pro forma
ritual in which presenters present and select Board responders
respond. Most of us could write the transcript before the engagement.
It may have symbolic importance but it has no measurable output,
either in terms of decision making of knowledge sharing.

Sam L.

 Quoting Matthew Shears <mshears at cdt.org>:

> Ed, good suggestions.
>
> Happy to take a role in the Board discussion in Dublin assuming
> adequate
> time to deliberate the issue we would want to discuss.
>
> Matthew
>
> On 7/10/2015 5:42 AM, Edward Morris wrote:
> > I actually think we may be spending too much time with
> "friendlies"
> > and not enough time with the others. I had reasonably long
> > conversations with Kuo-Wei and Asha and they don't know a heck of
> a
> > lot about us. I also question whether some of our friendlies
> correctly
> > interpret things: for example, the idea the Board would be open
> to a
> > restructuring that would consolidate NC interests in one unit is
> so
> > far from reality that I'm not sure how anyone could reasonably
> believe
> > that. Strategically I also would prioritize members of the BGC:
> they
> > are more important to us than other members on structural
> matters.
> >
> > We did not take full advantage of the new structure. The Board
> was
> > looking more for a conversation and we were playing, according to
> more
> > than one of them, gotcha. I've been told the other groups warmed
> to
> > the new structure and we did not. It doesn't matter whether this
> is
> > true is not, that's the perception of some and in this case
> perception
> > is a reality we need to deal with.
> >
> > At the PC meeting Bill proposed new faces for our leads,
> something
> > that really did not happen. I think that was a good idea. I also
> think
> > we should use the opportunity less to tell the Board what to
> think and
> > more to listen to what and why they think what they do. Conceive
> of it
> > as a first date. Those usually go better when you listen to the
> other
> > person and give her (or he, as the case may be) the chance to
> speak
> > and explain instead of spending the time telling the person how
> great
> > you are and what to think. Both sides need more humility and a
> desire
> > to listen to the other. How you do that with folks like Chris on
> the
> > Board and some of our strong voices on stage I do not know.
> >
> > In terms of structure I think we may want to break the session
> down to
> > three sortable parts with different people. Let's give the Board
> a
> > chance to see the diversity of the NCSG rather than just telling
> them
> > we are diverse. Question 1 have 4 of us at the table, short
> break,
> > question 2 a different 4 and so on. Physically change the people
> in
> > the hope of rekindling the interest of Board members. It's a long
> day
> > and we're at the end of it. The CSG did something like this and
> I'm
> > told it worked well. We also should make the seating more Board -
> NCSG
> > - Board, instead of having some of us sitting together. And leave
> the
> > PC's off...we can live without chat or email for an hour. This
> should
> > be a strict rule for both sides.
> >
> > Just some thoughts...
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> > On Jul 10, 2015, at 10:03 AM, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com

<deleted>