[NCUC-DISCUSS] Questions and talking points for ICANN CEO

[Ayden Férdeline]

The EC’s decision was made off of a false premise - as you wrote here, for instance, you “[support the NCSG’s position](https://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-ec/2018-August/009873.html).” The NCSG does not have a position on the Intersessional.

> this is something that only the leadership go to, so they're probably better placed to make the decision about its utility than the members.

I do not disagree with that; but I have not seen the EC engaging in a conversation on the merits (or lack thereof) of the Intersessional. I see the NCUC EC simply supporting a non-existent position. I find it odd no one on the NCUC EC asked where this position was documented, or how it was reached. You are all subscribed to the NCSG list. Did you not find it unusual a position was made without first being discussed on the NCSG list?

> There are no communications that are not documented there.

That is good to know. I know until very recently the EC made most of its decisions off-list, on a private Skype channel.

Ayden

> On 28 Aug 2018, at 16:38, Michael Karanicolas <mkaranicolas at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Ayden - you're wrong on your transparency complaints. The entire conversation took place on the EC list, and is open for review. There are no communications that are not documented there.
>
> As to the question of consultation... I think there's room for reasonable disagreement as to when and how often we should be polling the members. I think Farzi raised an interesting point earlier, insofar as this is something that only the leadership go to, so they're probably better placed to make the decision about its utility than the members. Obviously the EC want to act in a way that's consistent with the wishes of the membership - but I don't think it's part of our procedures to go back to the members every time a decision needs to be made. That's not how a representative democracy works.
>
> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 11:13 AM Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> wrote:
>
>> How I would like to see the Intersessional evolve is not the topic of this thread. The topic of this thread is why did the NCUC Executive Committee propose eliminating the Intersessional without first consulting with NCUC members.
>>
>> This comes down to how the EC is making decisions, which, as has been well documented on our list for months now, is not transparent and not in keeping with our values.
>>
>> Renata is going to the CEO asking for capacity building resources, while the EC is busy rejecting the resources that we already have and could re-purpose with a little imagination.
>>
>> And this is happening without membership consultation.
>>
>> Do you think this is acceptable? Because I don’t.
>>
>> —Ayden
>>
>>> On 28 Aug 2018, at 16:05, Michael Karanicolas <mkaranicolas at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 10:56 AM Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> No, I am not describing the Leadership Program, which from what I understand (I have not participated in it), focuses more on soft skills.
>>>>
>>>> What I would like is for us to re-think what should be the purpose of the Intersessional, and to turn it more into a policy bootcamp whereby we get members up to speed every year on key topics, strategise for the year ahead, and work with other Stakeholder Groups to understand their perspectives.
>>>>
>>>> And I don’t think we necessarily need all of our leaders at the Intersessional to do this. Some leaders yes, some veterans yes, some rising stars yes.
>>>>
>>>> That’s my view,
>>>>
>>>> Ayden
>>>
>>> Ok. So now it sounds like you're describing a slightly revised version
>>> of the Leadership Program, with a bit more of a policy component, and
>>> a breakout session for members to strategize.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20180828/4597d581/attachment.html>