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

[Alan Greenberg]

I support the letter, but have a few comments:

1. The sentence "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." needs to be either simplified, somewhat 
re-worded, or at least have some comma's added. 
As it is, it is difficult to parse.

2. You should make it clear if you are asking for 
the specified people to be allowed to attend, or 
are also asking for funding for their attendance.

3. It is unclear to me why you are saying that 
selected GNSO people (and particularly not just 
GNSO Council people) be allowed to attend, but no equivalent for ALAC.

4. In the rationale for meeting type, "inconvenients" should "inconveniences".

Alan

At 12/01/2011 06:17 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond 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