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

Thu Jan 13 16:02:02 UTC 2011

Upon reflection I would have a simple request for chairs and co-chairs from
all ACs and SOs.

GNSO's internal politics and its ability (or lack thereof) to have its
chairs and vice chairs serve as effective liaisons to this meeting, are not
our problems to solve here.
(Arguably they're not ours to solve at any time.)

ALAC is arguably even more diverse than GNSO -- though in very different
ways -- yet we are not thrashing about painstakingly trying to accommodate
that diversity for the sake of this meeting. We threaten to have the Board
and GAC conclude 'to hell with all of you -- if the choice is either closed
or a zoo we'll choose closed'.

Simplicity is in order. Chairs and co-chairs of constitient bodies and
that's it. Anything else introduces an unwelcome level of complexity given
the timeframe and the intended purpose of the meeting. This is, after all, a
Board/GAC consultation. The rest are observers and bystanders helping to
ensure transparency.

The cesspool that is GNSO structure is not about to be solved at this time.
Don't allow this request to get dragged into it.

- Evan

On 13 January 2011 06:54, Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa at fmai.org> wrote:

>
>
> -        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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>

-- 
- Evan