[At-Large] [lac-discuss-en] Public Board Meeting - the Update for Prague

Adam Peake ajp at glocom.ac.jp
Wed May 2 11:50:49 UTC 2012

I am in two minds about this.  If the board is transparent in all its
meetings, and increasingly it is trying to be, then ending a day early
might work well.  The meetings are starting earlier, I think most of
us (except perhaps when the meeting's in our region) start to travel
on a working day before the formal week of a meeting and often get
back on a Sunday or later. For the board it's becoming almost 2 weeks.
We're a volunteer community that's perhaps asking too much of our
employers. And I don't know how staff manage, from 7 to late for over
a week (jet lagged.)

But. Loosing reports from the SOs and ACs matters (even at 8am...)
Important that reports are read into the record, and important the
directors sitting formally as the board are to be able to ask
questions, the community also.

And the Board meeting isn't just a show. Important comments often
made. I recently had reason to refer to Mike Silber's comments on
outreach made during the board meeting (attached).  A statement much
more powerful because it was made during an on record meeting of the
board rather than teleconference or at the public forum.  Would be a
terrible to loose this.

And thanking people --outgoing volunteers, the hosts--  is an
important formality.

If 3 or 4 hours on Friday is lost, where can it be squeezed during the week?

Mike Palage noted there were 3 other board meetings during the Costa
Rica meeting (minutes etc online). The board has an enormous amount
for work to do.  But if they meet when scribing's available, they
should make use of it (we don't even have to be in the room, anyone
with a laptop/smart phone can follow the text stream).

Might be the right decision, but some public discussion before it was
taken would have been helpful. And if's to happen, then transcripts of
all board meetings please.


On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 5:50 PM, Sébastien Bachollet
<sebastien at bachollet.com> wrote:
> Dear all,
> I am on your side on that matter.
> I am still struggling with this issue on the Board.
> I hope that part of the situation is a missing piece in the communication
> but not sure 100%.
> A public board meeting will take place during the week (if subject matter).
> All the best
> Sébastien Bachollet
> +33 6 07 66 89 33
> Blog: http://sebastien.bachollet.fr/
> Mail: Sébastien Bachollet <sebastien at bachollet.com>
> Le 02/05/12 00:54, « Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond » <ocl at gih.com> a écrit :
>>Dear all,
>>I indeed had been asked about this and forwarded an enquiry to the ALAC
>>working list.
>>But I was not able to get back to the Board with the views of our
>>community (rather than my own views) before their announcement. I had no
>>idea they were going to proceed without a proper consultation with the
>>Kind regards,
>>On 01/05/2012 03:03, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote :
>>> Dear All,
>>> I recall the Chair suggesting the removal of Friday and in a sense as
>>> Chair/Director he does have the authority to restructure or reformat the
>>> meeting style but would have thought that since it involves a wide
>>>range of
>>> stakeholders that there should have been some level of consultation on
>>> that. Maybe there were consultations but I missed it ???
>>> Part of "transparency" is the ability for the public to see the nuances
>>> from body language whilst communicating.
>>> Kind Regards,
>>> Sala
>>> On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 9:51 PM, Dev Anand Teelucksingh
>>><devtee at gmail.com>wrote:
>>>> I agree with you Carlton.
>>>> Sure, the hard decisions were already decided "behind the scenes" so
>>>> that there were no surprises. And yes, I suppose the board meeting
>>>> transcript of such a ICANN Board meeting held after the conference can
>>>> be done.
>>>> But not seeing the body language of the ICANN Board as they explained
>>>> their decisions on key issues in the history of ICANN (e.g .XXX , the
>>>> launch of the new gTLD program) and also the sense of what the
>>>> community felt as they listened to the statements, is lost.
>>>> Hopefully, important issues to be decided by the ICANN Board would be
>>>> done by special ICANN Board meetings such as the one held on Monday
>>>> during the Singapore meeting, when the implementation of the new gTLD
>>>> program was approved.
>>>> Dev Anand
>>>> On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 6:59 PM, Carlton Samuels
>>>> <carlton.samuels at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> I'm sure I may be in the minority to bemoan the passing of the usual
>>>>> 'public' Friday morning ICANN Board meeting.
>>>>> Let us be clear I'm not just hopped off the truck here. I'm familiar
>>>> enough
>>>>> with these matters to recognize it for what it is principally
>>>>> theatre.  But in the ICANN context, even crafted theatre has its role.
>>>>> First, I truly believe that for a claimed multistakeholder
>>>> and
>>>>> while the 'public' board meeting may not have been all it could be, it
>>>> was
>>>>> an important indicator or attribute of the MSM, especially having
>>>>> the global public interest.
>>>>> Secondly, even if the votes are already taken, there existed an
>>>>> chance that one may witness truly revealing 'body language' of
>>>>> participants.  Maybe its because for most of my life I have always
>>>>> straddled several socio-political realities. But I am socialized to be
>>>> ever
>>>>> mindful that one may 'feel the hand of Esau even as you hear the
>>>>>voice of
>>>>> Jacob'.
>>>>> I can still hear Susan Crawford's cathartic farewell speech in 2008.
>>>>> was remarkable, the response in body language of several board members
>>>> told
>>>>> a story.  I will concede it may not mean much, then and there.
>>>>> the deed is done and the die is cast. But when the 'fire next time'
>>>> comes,
>>>>> it is instructive.
>>>>> - Carlton Samuels
>>>>> ==============================
>>>>> Carlton A Samuels
>>>>> Mobile: 876-818-1799
>>>>> *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
>>>>> =============================
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> lac-discuss-en mailing list
>>>>> lac-discuss-en at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>>>>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> At-Large mailing list
>>>> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>>>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
>>>> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
>>Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
>>At-Large mailing list
>>At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>>At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
> _______________________________________________
> At-Large mailing list
> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Silber-Dakar-new-gTLD.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 37888 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/at-large/attachments/20120502/ddde7723/Silber-Dakar-new-gTLD.doc>

More information about the At-Large mailing list