[ALAC] [At-Large] [ALAC-Internal] GNSO Council Motion on Cross-Community Working Groups

[Evan Leibovitch]

On 17 January 2012 17:35, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:


Several of the points are very GNSO-centric (and perhaps ccNSO) in that
> they repeatedly stipulate that formal "policy" must be carried out
> under the rules set out in the  ICANN Bylaws for such policy development.


As we have seen in the gTLD rollout, the GNSO has repeatedly shown its own
willingness to overstep its bounds and deal in processes rather than policy
(ie, objection processes).

If the GNSO wants to be anal about how policy can be done, we also have the
obligation to point out that GNSO has less bylaw-based authority to comment
on non-policy implementation matters than ALAC does.

The point that will no doubt be a lightening rod following the JAS group is
> the stipulation that when formed, a CCWG should have a single
> charter. Although in the far reaches of my imagination I can come up with
> reasons that this should not be a rule, but I not at all sure that such
> edge cases need to be dealt with here.


I don't see the stretch. Soon to come will be RAA discussions in which the
issue of "rights", for end users and/or registrants will come out. In
previous GNSO meetings I have been told these issues have been out of scope
and are of no interest to them. If there is future cross-community work on
this issue I will not want to constrain the ALAC's ability to advocate for
end-user issues because it's out of the GNSO's scope. It may mean there are
components of the combined work in which the GNSO may have no interest, but
the lack of shared interest in (what some would see as) a side issue should
not present the larger issues from being discussed jointly.

There should be many, many opportunities to do cross-community work. If it
is to be constrained to always be the lowest common denominator of only
that which is of interest to all, not much of this will happen.


> I do not believe that we have ever participated in a CCWG that
> had multiple disagreeing charters at the beginning.
>

Alan, we have not participated in that many CCWGs, period. The concept is
still in its infancy and I see these regs as the wedge of an attempt to
thwart this concept before it becomes too dangerous to established power.


 In fact, those who were around may recall that for the JAS group, we did
> agree on a single charter. Due to a clerical (honestly!) error, one clause
> was omitted from the version that the GNSO approved. When the charter came
> up to the ALAC, the ALAC decided to drop that clause as well, as it wasfelt
> that it was not sufficiently important to
> warrant delaying the entire process until it could go back to the GNSO for
> re-chartering (and we believed that the group WOULD look at that issue
> regardless of whether it  as in the charter). Other CCWGs such as DSSA all
> had a single charter agreed to by one mechanism or another ahead of time.
>


This worked, and is an argument in favour of a status quo of flexibility.


You will notice that the principles are silent on the issue of
> re-chartering part-way through a process, the situation where JAS blew up.



If the proposed principles demand a single charter, then a post-creation
divergence in charter would demand disbanding of the WG. This is IMO
unacceptable.



> If you recall the sequence of events there:
>

I recall that ALAC did all the accommodation in an unsuccessful attempt to
find a middle ground.



> - that was perhaps a bit awkward to work with, but the JAS WG was willing
> and things proceeded to the eventual VERY successful outcome, with the GNSO
> supporting all end-products equally, even the ones that they had not
> included in their charter.
>


Evidence, please?

The GNSO motion on the JAS final report did not endorse it at all, but
simply acknowledged it and forwarded it to the Board.

That hardly constituted "support", and obviously feel short of a GNSO
request that the Board approve the JAS core component requests (such as fee
reductions unconstrained by a fixed fund).



> Another area that may attract discussion is about the rules that a CCWG
> will follow.


Why does this need to be set in stone?

Different problems call for different solutions, and constraining the
process before it starts is worse than counter-productive.

- Evan