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

[William Drake]

Hi

On Jan 17, 2012, at 11:55 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:

> thanks for your kind note. This is the first I hear of this. I'll check
> with the ExCom re: a response. I am particularly surprised that the GNSO
> Council would engage in a unilateral decision such as this when the
> functioning of CWGs affects both the GNSO but also the other SOs and ACs
> taking part in CWGs.
> 
> That said, I note that the Motion mentions asking SO and AC Chairs to
> provide input in 60 days so I gather that this process will extend to
> outside the confines of the GNSO Council should the motion be passed.



Right, of course any principles the Council adopts are just a statement of its position going into possible negotiation of a "related set of principles" for community-wide adoption, and other SO/ACs will have ample opportunities to formulate responses and work it out with the Council.  So certainly there is no issue here of unilaterally imposing its model on anyone else.  Nevertheless, it is useful for the wider community to know where the Council is heading on this, and for the Council to be aware of any concerns others might have before locking in on its preferred model.  Hence the request for any inputs that Alan and if needed I can pass along at this stage.

Just to respond quickly to a few points:


On Jan 17, 2012, at 10:38 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote:

> Suggested draft principle
> could be as follows:-
> 
> In recognition of At Large's role in highlighting global end users interest
> nothing shall take away the rights nor restrict in any way shape or form At
> Large's capacity to constantly engage in raising the rights and interests
> of end users. Whilst I note that (2)(c)(iii) covers it somewhat but it
> appears a trifle inadequate.

I understand the concern, but suspect underscoring ALAC's mandate in a Council text would be a hard sell, especially since the latter doesn't affect the former.

On Jan 18, 2012, at 1:03 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:

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

On Jan 18, 2012, at 4:51 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote:

> If we (At-Large) want to work on 
> something that is counter to the interests (or self-interest) of part 
> or all of the GNSO, then is is not a really good CCWG.

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).

Thanks for the input,

Best

Bill