[council] Re: DOODLE / GNSO Council Restructuring drafting team / next call
Avri,
Not being in the OSC operations WT but having an interest in the topic, I
will reply to a few points made in this thread if you will allow just one
more incursion in this mailing list...
I am however copying the Council list as I see this as a long term issue,
and one which the Council will have to address.
On the points raised by Liz, as I suggested before I think a kind of
test-run could be tried on selected WGs or DTs to start with, as long as the
aim is to find a solution to the problem as a whole.
More generally, Liz is absolutely right to point out that organising
meetings in timezones outside the US will place a burden on ICANN's
US-centric staff. That is absolutely something that we must think about, but
it's also something that serves to highlight the US-centric problem even
more. Because ICANN has limited staff outside of the US, it will find it
hard to provide support for those volunteers in the SOs and ACs that are
from other timezones. We therefore seem to be hitting against a
contradiction in the ICANN model, which on the one hand strives towards
maximum regional representation (just look at the diversity of volunteers on
the Council and in any other ICANN structure, or look at the work done on
geo regions for instance), but on the other hand doesn't have the logistics
to back that up.
There is no doubt in my mind that if we are to try to make volunteers' life
easier when they are outside the "convenient" US or European regions, we
will also need to find ways to have those volunteers adequately supported by
ICANN staff.
An interested discussion, and one which we obviously need to give a lot more
thought to before we are able to suggest workable solutions.
Thanks,
Stéphane
Le 19/08/09 21:45, « Avri Doria » <avri@xxxxxxx> a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> I see two issues here.
>
> One a short term problem in terms of the Restructuring DT meeting -
> which I am still not convinced we need, but willing to follow the lead
> of others on. On this I am still wondering if there isn't some time
> that works for all that does not fall into the 12-5 am time zone for
> anyone.
>
> And second is the general problem. In terms of the general problem I
> suggest we throw it into the appropriate Work Team for discussion (WG
> WT or OSC Operations WT) and not use the meeting notification mailing
> list to try and work it out adhoc.
>
> thanks
>
> a.
>
>
> On 19 Aug 2009, at 15:29, Liz Gasster wrote:
>
>> All,
>>
>> I¹m short on ³solutions² so far, but I do have four questions about
>> how the idea endorsed by Kristina and Stéphane would work:
>>
>> 1. Would it apply to all working groups the Council proposes
>> to have essentially double calls for all working groups? Many
>> working groups have little Asia-Pacific representation today
>> (though it is possible that Asia-Pacific participation might
>> increase if we schedule calls at more convenient times for those
>> participants).
>> 2. I gather that staff would be expected to produce notes and/
>> or a recording following the ³first² call in time for participants
>> to prepare by reading those notes or listening to the recording of
>> the first call prior to the second call on the same or next day. Is
>> this a correct understanding?
>> 3. Currently the Policy group has no staff in the Asia Pacific
>> region. Staff are assigned to working groups by issue so that we can
>> develop expertise and an understanding of the substance of each
>> working group. Kristina suggested that the same staff person be
>> cover both calls (for particular regions) on a particular topic, I
>> assume to preserve this continuity. I am not sure how staff could
>> manage the hours implied in that suggestion without sharing
>> responsibilities for working groups or working excessive hours on a
>> regular basis. I may be missing the thought about how this
>> arrangement would work.
>> 4. Would working groups ever meet as a whole? I am concerned
>> that it will be even more difficult to coordinate writing tasks and
>> consensus-building when calls are conducted serially, and that as a
>> practical matter staff would assume a go-between role in
>> coordinating documents and work deliverables with two sets of
>> individuals who would only communicate with each other ³on list².
>> Would two sets of action items be maintained? Would documents that
>> staff agreed to update, revise or change on one call need to be
>> complete for review by the second group? How would disagreements and
>> decisions be addressed? Should working group processes be developed
>> to cover such a working environment (like for example by the Working
>> Groups Work Team of the PPSC)?
>>
>> We would very much like to accommodate a workable arrangement, just
>> thinking through the logistics.
>>
>> Thanks! Liz
>>
>> From: owner-ntfy-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
>> [mailto:owner-ntfy-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
>> ] On Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff
>> Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2009 10:17 AM
>> To: cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx; krosette@xxxxxxx; stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx
>> ; adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Gisella Gruber-White;
>> ntfy-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
>> Cc: gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: Re: DOODLE / GNSO Council Restructuring drafting team /
>> next call
>>
>> Rotating times with the schedule set at least a month or two in
>> advance. That is the only way in which everyone will have notice and
>> everyone will have the same amount of "pain". That combined with
>> more work being done on the lists.
>> Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.
>> Vice President, Law & Policy
>> NeuStar, Inc.
>> Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>> From: Gomes, Chuck
>> To: Neuman, Jeff; krosette@xxxxxxx ; stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx ;
>> adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> ; Gisella.Gruber-White@xxxxxxxxx ; ntfy-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
>> Cc: gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxx
>> Sent: Wed Aug 19 11:47:41 2009
>> Subject: RE: DOODLE / GNSO Council Restructuring drafting team /
>> next call
>> Disagreement is good Jeff but it would be helpful if you provided an
>> alternative to deal with the scheduling problem.
>>
>> Chuck
>>
>> From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx]
>> Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2009 11:22 AM
>> To: krosette@xxxxxxx; stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx; Gomes, Chuck;
>> adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> ; Gisella.Gruber-White@xxxxxxxxx; ntfy-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
>> Cc: gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: Re: DOODLE / GNSO Council Restructuring drafting team /
>> next call
>>
>> I actually do not support this proposal. The election of chairs and
>> vice chairs needs to be skills based, not geographical. recommending
>> this approach is ok, requiring it will create more problems than it
>> will solve. Its tough enough to get volunteers for chair positions,
>> but adding a geography requirement seems impossible to implement.
>>
>> That's just my opinion.
>> Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.
>> Vice President, Law & Policy
>> NeuStar, Inc.
>> Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>> From: owner-ntfy-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
>> To: Stéphane Van Gelder ; Gomes, Chuck ; Adrian Kinderis ; Gisella
>> Gruber-White ; ntfy-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
>> Cc: GNSO Secretariat
>> Sent: Wed Aug 19 11:10:51 2009
>> Subject: RE: DOODLE / GNSO Council Restructuring drafting team /
>> next call
>> Sounds like a plan to me. (Only suggestion would be to make clear
>> that one vice-chair could be from Africa/Asia/Australia/Pacific and
>> the other from North America/Latin America/Caribbean/Europe.)
>>
>>
>> From: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx]
>> Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2009 10:26 AM
>> To: Rosette, Kristina; Gomes, Chuck; Adrian Kinderis; Gisella Gruber-
>> White; ntfy-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
>> Cc: GNSO Secretariat
>> Subject: Re: DOODLE / GNSO Council Restructuring drafting team /
>> next call
>>
>> Indeed, a very good idea Kristina.
>>
>> How about 2 vice-chairs and no chairs as SOP for all WGs and DTs?
>> One vice-chair from Europe or USA. One from Asia Pac or other region
>> in same timezone. Staff responsible for supplying vice-chairs with
>> the summaries and briefs they need to coordinate the group¹s work
>> (ie notes from the other timezone meeting). Meetings could then be
>> held on the same day, but at different times according to the
>> relevant timezones. That way, the actual group¹s work does not get
>> delayed by the dual meeting system.
>>
>> I would also suggest this method initially NOT be used for the full
>> Council meetings. I do not see how attendance at these meetings can
>> be split while still retaining a functioning Council. This method
>> could be evaluated on WGs and DTs and then, after a period, applied
>> elsewhere if it proves effective.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Stéphane
>>
>>
>> Le 19/08/09 16:14, « Rosette, Kristina » <krosette@xxxxxxx> a écrit :
>>
>> That's what I was thinking. Will probably require increased staff
>> support to maximize efficiency and decrease amount of chair
>> coordination time.
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
>> Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2009 10:12 AM
>> To: Rosette, Kristina; Stéphane Van Gelder; Adrian Kinderis;
>> Gisella Gruber-White; ntfy-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
>> Cc: GNSO Secretariat
>> Subject: RE: DOODLE / GNSO Council Restructuring drafting team /
>> next call
>>
>>
>>
>> Interesting idea Kristina. It would then be easier for the two co-
>> chairs to find a time to talk to one another and coordinate their
>> schedules than it would be for the whole group.
>>
>>
>>
>> Chuck
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Rosette, Kristina [mailto:krosette@xxxxxxx]
>> Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2009 10:07 AM
>> To: Gomes, Chuck; Stéphane Van Gelder; Adrian Kinderis; Gisella
>> Gruber-White; ntfy-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
>> Cc: GNSO Secretariat
>> Subject: RE: DOODLE / GNSO Council Restructuring drafting team /
>> next call
>>
>>
>>
>> Why not have either two chairs or a chair and vice-chair for each
>> WG/DT, require that one be from USA/Europe and the other from Asia
>> Pacific, have each be responsible for respective meetings and
>> coordinate, with significant staff support (one person who would be
>> responsible for attending all)?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> From: owner-ntfy-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
>> [mailto:owner-ntfy-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
>> ] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
>> Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2009 9:46 AM
>> To: Stéphane Van Gelder; Adrian Kinderis; Gisella Gruber-White;
>> ntfy-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
>> Cc: GNSO Secretariat
>> Subject: RE: DOODLE / GNSO Council Restructuring drafting team /
>> next call
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks for the feedback Stephane. Let's keep brainstorming. We
>> really do need to find something or some things that work.
>>
>>
>>
>> Chuck
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx]
>> Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2009 8:21 AM
>> To: Gomes, Chuck; Adrian Kinderis; Gisella Gruber-White;
>> ntfy-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
>> Cc: GNSO Secretariat
>> Subject: Re: DOODLE / GNSO Council Restructuring drafting team /
>> next call
>>
>>
>> I agree that multiple options need to be explored and that the
>> current status quo is detrimental to a GNSO Council that functions
>> well.
>>
>> I am not sure that scheduling two meetings to cover the same
>> subject matter is a good idea however. As you point out, this would
>> mean that some people would have to cover both meetings and I
>> suspect we would end up with the same people doing all the work
>> once again, which would place an unfair burden on them. I think
>> this idea can only work if both meetings are attended by, and run
>> by, two completely different sets of people (eg. one set from the
>> USA/Europe regions and the other from Asia Pac). This however then
>> may cause organisational problems as the work done in both meetings
>> would need to be homogenised and streamlined.
>>
>> Stéphane
>>
>>
>> Le 18/08/09 13:49, « Gomes, Chuck » <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :
>>
>>
>> We haven't made much progress at all in solving this problem and I
>> believe it is reasonable to expect that it will get worse not
>> better going forward. So it seems to me that we need to come up
>> with some new approaches that we haven't considered yet.
>>
>> If we eliminate all times between 11 pm and 6 am for all
>> participants in a given meeting and if their are participants from
>> every geographic region, I don't think any time would work. So it
>> is no wonder that simply doing Doodles doesn't work.
>>
>> We have tried rotating times of meetings so that different
>> participants are negatively impacted at least every other meeting.
>> This seems fairer to all but makes scheduling more difficult. It
>> still may be one of the steps we can take quickly to at least
>> spread the pain around, especially for the most important meetings
>> such as Council calls as Philip suggested, .
>>
>> It would be nice if there was an ideal solution, but I don't
>> believe there is one, so I think we need to explore multiple options.
>>
>> One root cause of the problem we are trying to solve is that we
>> have not yet developed the discipline to work productively using
>> electronic means instead of live meetings. So I think we need to
>> focus more attention on exploring ways that we could increase
>> efficiencies using electronic means to work on policy. We have
>> experimented with some tools and they have helped a little but they
>> haven't really decreased our dependence on live meetings. This
>> topic fits well in the GNSO Council Operations Work Team charter
>> but it may be awhile before they can focus on it so It might be a
>> good idea to form a small group to focus on this sooner. Such a
>> group could explore tools and methodologies used by others and
>> develop some concrete recommendations. I am sure that ICANN Policy
>> Staff could be of great assistance on this.
>>
>> In the near term though, I suspect that we will continue to need
>> live meetings. We also want to be totally open and have as diverse
>> participation as possible but that exasperates the scheduling
>> challenge for live meetings. How can we expand diversity of
>> participation while minimizing scheduling difficulties? Larger
>> groups tend to cause more scheduling difficulties. Could we
>> organize large groups into smaller groups that meet separately and
>> intentionally structure the small groups so that the various time
>> zones represented are more homogeneous? To accomplish this we
>> probably would need to consciously consider time zone practicality
>> when forming the small groups. If we were successful, the small
>> groups could then more readily develop policy approaches for
>> consideration by the larger group electronically. I think this
>> goes along with Philip's suggestion of division of
>> responsibilities. An approach along this line seems to fit into the
>> mission of the Working Group Model team but maybe we could develop
>> some of the concepts before they are able to get to it.
>>
>> One thing that is not acceptable is to continue the way we have
>> been. We have been trying for weeks to schedule a meeting for the
>> Restructing Drafting Team meeting without success and it is
>> critical that that team meet quickly to resolve several remaining
>> issues. To solve this immediate problem, I suggest we hold two
>> meetings at different times that cover the same agenda. That would
>> require a few of us to participate in both meetings but I think we
>> could keep that to a minimum. It also would require that the a
>> summary of key points and issues of the first meeting be prepared
>> quickly and distributed in advance of the second meeting. After
>> both meetings, it might be possible to finish most of our work
>> online.
>>
>> Chuck
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> From: owner-ntfy-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
>> [mailto:owner-ntfy-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
>> ] On Behalf Of Adrian Kinderis
>> Sent: Monday, August 17, 2009 9:19 PM
>> To: Gisella Gruber-White; ntfy-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
>> Cc: GNSO Secretariat
>> Subject: RE: DOODLE / GNSO Council Restructuring drafting team /
>> next call
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I have completed the Doodle (but I am not sure why I bother).
>>
>>
>>
>> For the record, whilst I am of course interested in participating
>> (and it is my duty as a Councillor) I will continually reject
>> meeting times that impact my ability to perform my work at 100%
>> (i.e. I will not participate in any calls between 11pm and 6am
>> local time).
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Adrian Kinderis
>> Chief Executive Officer
>>
>> AusRegistry International Pty Ltd
>> Level 8, 10 Queens Road
>> Melbourne. Victoria Australia. 3004
>> Ph: +61 3 9866 3710
>> Fax: +61 3 9866 1970
>> Email: adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Web: www.ausregistry.com <http://www.ausregistryinternational.com/>
>>
>>
>>
>> - Follow AusRegistry International on Twitter:
>> www.twitter.com/ausregistryint
>> <http://www.twitter.com/ausregistryint>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> The information contained in this communication is intended for
>> the named recipients only. It is subject to copyright and may
>> contain legally privileged and confidential information and if you
>> are not an intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute
>> or take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this
>> communication in error, please delete all copies from your system
>> and notify us immediately.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> From: owner-ntfy-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
>> [mailto:owner-ntfy-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
>> ] On Behalf Of Gisella Gruber-White
>> Sent: Tuesday, 18 August 2009 9:56 AM
>> To: ntfy-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
>> Cc: GNSO Secretariat; Gisella Gruber-White
>> Subject: DOODLE / GNSO Council Restructuring drafting team / next
>> call
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear All,
>>
>> In order to schedule the next GNSO Council Restructuring drafting
>> team, please complete the attached Doodle poll.
>>
>> http://www.doodle.com/2c8xaadq6v8wpbx3
>>
>> We will confirm the date and time once everyone has completed this.
>>
>> The poll will close on Wednesday at 1200 UTC.
>>
>> Thank you
>> Kind regards
>> Gisella
>>
>> ----------------------------
>> Gisella Gruber-White
>> On behalf of GNSO Secretariat
>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>>
>> Email: gisella.gruber-white@xxxxxxxxx
>> Tel: +44 7545 334 360
>> Skype ID: gisella.gw
>>
>>
>
>