Re: [council] End of the Shadow Council
Hi,
Seems a good topic for this morning's closed meeting.
I am not read to take a unilateral action on this but would like to
hear from the other council members - new and old.
a.
On 25 Oct 2009, at 05:42, Mike Rodenbaugh wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
I write again regarding the so-called “Observers” at face-to-face
GNSO Council meetings.
Of course, I fully support that our face-to-face meetings are
generally always open to true observers, both those present and
located remotely. And I fully support that all of our meetings are
generally fully recorded and transcribed. Indeed I think they
should be translated, and that our conference calls be opened in
real time to the public, with non-speaking access. I fully support
that our email list is open and archived. All of this allows the
public to see how the Council operates in practically real-time, and
to experience the information and debate first-hand. Council must
have flexibility to close its sessions and/or communicate privately,
when it deems necessary for any stated and agreed reason. But I
believe that has never happened to date, and of course the default
must be open meetings and open communications.
However, the growing trend is for GNSO “Observers” to participate in
the Council’s weekend face-to-face meetings on equal footing with
Councilors, Liasons and Staff. A small and growing group of
privileged observers, none of whom are elected or appointed to
represent anyone but themselves and/or their specific organizations,
are increasingly taking an inordinate amount of Council and Staff
time. In effect, they are a “Shadow Council” that follows the
Council from meeting to meeting, taking advantage of a privilege
they ought not have. This must stop, effective immediately.
It is not scalable as the community of interested observers grows
and diversifies. It is not fair in any way:
n Not fair to Councilors and Liasons who offer great personal
sacrifice to travel long distances away from their lives,
volunteering an overly full weekend in advance of a lengthy five-day
meeting.
n Not fair to the constituents who elected or appointed the
Councilors and Liasons, expecting that they (and only they) would
serve as those constituents’ representatives on Council.
n Not fair to the general public whose only opportunities for input
to Council are via the Constituencies, Working Groups or public
comment periods. Particularly not fair to the general public that
does not speak English, or who cannot attend the sessions, as they
have no equal ability to participate vis a vis the “Shadow Council”.
n Not fair to the Staff nor the Council as a whole, whose only
opportunity to communicate face-to-face is during these meetings.
The GNSO Council is a representative body. The representative
Councilors and designated Liaisons must be allowed to do their jobs,
which absolutely requires face-to-face interaction with Staff and
with each other -- without constant ‘clarifying questions’, ‘points
of order’, comments or questions from the public. To my
knowledge, no other SO, nor the GAC nor the Board – nor any other
council, committee or board anywhere in the world -- ever allow such
privilege to observers. Such points should be raised through
Council representatives, or during any or all of the many
opportunities for public comment into the Council processes. Indeed
this is the reason-for-being of the Constituencies themselves, of
Working Groups, of public comment periods in general, and of the
public comment periods allowed at the Council’s face-to-face
meetings (which can also be used in our weekend sessions, if time
allows).
Therefore, beginning with the newTLD session today, I request that
observers be disallowed equal access to the Council table and
microphones, just as they are disallowed such access at our larger
public meetings and in our conference calls. The material presented
by Staff in the session today will doubtless be repeated during a
public session later in the week, which is a perfect opportunity for
anyone to ask their questions or make their points directly to the
Staff, without wasting tremendously valuable and scarce face-to-face
Council/Staff time. As we have seen, too many people are abusing
the privilege of open access to raise points that they then raise
again and again at every opportunity throughout the ICANN meeting,
and/or to communicate their particular, non-representative
interests. They are abusing a privilege that they should not have
in the first place, because it is not fair.
Does anyone have an argument as to why the current privilege should
be allowed to continue? Is anyone aware of any other council, board
or committee, anywhere in the world, that allows such a privilege to
observers?
Otherwise, I hope the privilege will be discontinued immediately,
and request Avri to confirm via reply to this list. If not, my next
effort to stop this will be an Ombudsman complaint, on behalf of the
entire community, so that this practice is investigated by a neutral
party and discussed formally at the Council and/or Board level(s).
I also request that the relevant OSC team discuss this and recommend
appropriate provisions in our Council Rules of Procedure to ensure
that nobody is given undue and disruptive access to Council,
Liaisons and Staff during our meetings.
Each and every member of the community – other than the “Shadow
Councilors” and their specific organizations -- suffer from the
continuation of this unwarranted and unseemly privilege that offered
to just a few, at the expense of the many.
Sincerely,
Mike
Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
548 Market Street
San Francisco, CA 94104
(415) 738-8087
http://rodenbaugh.com