[ALAC] Urgent: proposed email to GAC/ Board Chairs

[Cheryl Langdon-Orr]

No Objection at all I support this...

Cheryl Langdon-Orr
(CLO)



On 13 January 2011 10:17, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com> wrote:

> Dear ALAC members,
>
> you might be aware that there is currently much internal debate going on
> within GAC and the Board, and elsewhere, about the organisation of the
> summit which will bring GAC and the Board together. A significant tug of
> war appears to be taking place between partisans of the open meeting
> model and those of the closed meeting model. Another area of unknown
> unknown is where and when this meeting is due to take place.
>
> Please find enclosed below, a letter which I propose emailing to the
> Chair of the GAC and the Chair of the ICANN Board. Again, time is of the
> essence, so please read this:
> ** I shall be sending this in 24H if there is no objection from the ALAC **
>
> The aim is to catalyse the finding of a solution by suggesting one
> that's agreeable to everyone and avoid a situation where the results of
> such a meeting hold no legitimacy due to a flawed process.
>
> I look forward to your feedback.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Olivier
>
> --- body of the letter ---
>
> The following is a suggestion which I make in an individual capacity,
> after having listened to the argument of many people involved in and out
> of the decision process.  [ this will be replaced by: "which is made
> with agreement of ALAC" ]
>
> Proposed meeting Date: Mid-February
> Rationale: there are concerns that a meeting taking place at the end of
> the month will not give enough time for the Board to take notice,
> discuss and act on the points raised in the meeting, in time for the SFO
> meeting. Similarly, the GAC members would not have enough time to report
> to their governments and their stakeholders.
> As a result, there would be a real threat that the meetings in SFO would
> not contribute positively to the possibility of pressing the "go" button
> in SFO. More delays. More unhappy constituencies.
>
> Proposed meeting type: a mix of open & closed
> Rationale: both closed and open models have their advantages &
> inconvenients.
> Proponents of the closed model argue that there are several points of
> internal GAC & Board relationship building which might not benefit from
> being public - and could stop from GAC or Board members from being free
> to say what they wish to say during the meeting. This argument certainly
> has its validity.
> Proponents of an open meeting argue that ICANN, a champion of the open
> model of transparency, cannot politically have a closed meeting between
> the GAC and the Board. In the light of the uproar released by civil
> society triggered by the recent CSTD decisions regarding IGF-related
> governance, it is a simple case of eating one's own dog food.
> Opponents of the open model argue that if the meeting is going to be
> turned into a "circus" with people after people coming onto the
> microphone and giving mixed signals, this would be a waste of time.
>
> I therefore propose:
> - that the meeting, likely to last 2 days to be thorough, should be
> composed of a mix of closed and open meetings, with an emphasis that the
> closed meeting time shall constitute less than 40% of the total time
> allocated for meetings.
> - that it shall be possible to follow the open meeting remotely, through
> an Adobe Connect room, Internet streaming and a telephone bridge, to a
> standard no lower than the standard proposed at an ICANN Annual General
> Meeting (AGM).
> - that the Chair and Vice Chairs of SOs and ACs, plus a select number of
> people in the GNSO (number to be determined but akin to a selection of
> people taking part in Cross Community Working Groups (CWGs)) shall be
> invited to make comments and take part in the discussion in *some* of
> the open sessions. They shall be called "Community Representatives (CR)".
> - that the Chair and/or Vice Chairs of SOs and ACs might, at a common
> GAC-Board invitation, appear or make statements for a part of the closed
> meetings, provided there is consensus between GAC and Board on their
> presence.
> - that the rest of the people following the meeting shall have observer
> status but shall have full freedom to be in touch at all times with
> their Community Representatives and shall therefore be able to speak
> through them.
>
> Yours sincerely,
>
> --- cut here ---
>
> --
> Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
> http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ALAC mailing list
> ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
>
> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
> ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac
>