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

Thu Jan 13 11:54:21 UTC 2011

-        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)".

Why you are restricting the “Community Representatives” to the GNSO only
while the cross community working groups are composed of people from all SOs
and ACs?  

------------------------------------------------------------------

Tijani BEN JEMAA

Executive Director 

Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations

Phone : + 216 70 825 231

Mobile : + 216 98 330 114

Fax     : + 216 70 825 231

------------------------------------------------------------------

-----Message d'origine-----
De : alac-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org
[mailto:alac-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] De la part de Olivier MJ
Crepin-Leblond
Envoyé : jeudi 13 janvier 2011 00:18
À : ALAC Working List
Objet : [ALAC] Urgent: proposed email to GAC/ Board Chairs

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