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

[Alan Greenberg]

At 18/01/2012 06:33 AM, William Drake wrote:
>Here I agree with Evan, which is why I, Avri and 
>I think other NCUCers raised this in 
>Council.  If the chartering groups' concerns 
>completely align and make a single charter 
>possible, great.  Conversely, if they are 
>fundamentally incompatible, a CCWG is unlikely 
>to be productive.  But in between these poles 
>there's a lot of space, so one would hope some 
>differences of emphasis don't by default mean 
>that each should just retreats into its silo to 
>do its own thing.  To me, a CCWG is in the first 
>instance a platform for interspecies dialogue on 
>issues requiring drill down reflection and 
>recommendations—joint ones if possible, but if 
>not, ok.  Consider the issue-set in a holistic 
>manner, and if one group preferences issues a, c 
>and e while the other preferences  b, d and f, 
>and/or comes to different conclusions/recs on 
>the same points, fine.  Why shouldn't the 
>chartering (and as needed, rechartering) process 
>allow for some variability as long as the groups 
>are engaging in a coherent dialogue on matters 
>of common concern?  Nor should the internal 
>dynamics of one group hold back the progress of 
>another in tackling the matters it cares 
>about.  As the JAS experience ultimately 
>demonstrated after the rechartering, a bit of 
>variability can allow for innovation and help 
>move things along (although obviously it can 
>also lead to contestation, which ought to be 
>manageable through better communication and coordination).
>
>A priori I'd think it preferable for the 
>principles to call for a single joint charter 
>"where possible" or some such weasel formulation 
>in order to give SO/ACs more latitude in working 
>out the model to be followed in each case, and 
>perhaps to offer some general guidelines for how 
>things should be conducted absent one. But I 
>suspect a motion amendment to that effect would 
>go down in flames.  In any event, however NCSG 
>votes, hopefully a mutually satisfactory 
>community-wide solution can be worked out later 
>(if in fact one thinks a fixed framework is needed).

No disagreement from me in this respect. I fought 
hard for a "where possible/practical" or 
"generally" phrase to be added to the one-charter 
issue. I did not win that one in the DT.

I do suspect that it is an edge case which 
particularly applies when the desires are 
generally compatible, but one groups wants a 
superset of issues addressed (so I guess my 
reference to the "far reaches of my imagination" 
was overkill ;-) ). However, since this is just 
the GNSO stake in the ground, if ALAC or others 
feel the bit of wriggle-room is desired, 
hopefully it can be put back in when that level 
of discussion happens. Clearly it would be a LOT 
better if the GNSO approves principals that do have the flexibility.

Alan