RE: [council] Request for ICANN Board members from the GNSO to Participate

["Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>]

Hello Jeff,

I will add this to the agenda for the Montreal meeting as a discussion
item.

My suggestion is that we:
(1) invite the GNSO elected Board members to listen-in on GNSO Council
meetings, but not participate in procedural or policy development
discussions (ie they will not have the same rights as the GAC or ALAC
liaisons)
[NOTE the invitation would be a courtesy as Board members can listen to
GNSO Council meetings anyway]

(2) schedule an item on the agenda for GNSO Council meetings for a
dialogue with the GNSO elected Board members, where the Board members
may request clarification of GNSO Council discussions, and the GNSO
Council members may request clarification/updates of Board activities.

This way we keep a clear separation between the role of a Board member
and the role of a Council member, but ensure that the Board members may
listen to the debate surrounding issues, and also seek clarification on
GNSO decisions.

I am not sure that we need to pass a formal motion, as (1) is already
available, and (2) is an issue of agenda scheduling.

Regards,
Bruce Tonkin



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@Neustar.us] 
> Sent: Saturday, 31 May 2003 4:48 AM
> To: 'Milton Mueller'; mcade@att.com; council@dnso.org; Neuman, Jeff
> Subject: RE: [council] Request for ICANN Board members from 
> the GNSO to Participate
> 
> 
> Bruce,
> 
> I guess that counts as a second.  Thanks Milton.  What can we 
> do to make sure that my motion gets on the agenda for the 
> next Council meeting.
> 
> Jeff
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Milton Mueller [mailto:Mueller@syr.edu]
> Sent: Friday, May 30, 2003 12:58 PM
> To: mcade@att.com; council@dnso.org; Jeff.Neuman@Neustar.us
> Subject: RE: [council] Request for ICANN Board members from 
> the GNSO to Participate
> 
> 
> I agree with Jeff; in the past there have been disconnects 
> betweem the DNSO policy development and the Board simply 
> because Board members were not following the thread of 
> discussions that led to a particular policy pronouncement and 
> consequently did not fully understand what was being 
> proposed. Listening in on our discussions would provide 
> valuable context to the reports we transmit to them.
> 
> Indeed, listening in would increase rather than decrease the 
> independence of the Board's judgement. An observant Board 
> member could sense nuances and disagreements that might not 
> be apparent from a bare report, and communicate that to the Board.
> 
> By this logic, however, any Board member should be welcome
> to listen in.
> 
> 
>