[At-Large] [ALAC-Internal] GNSO Council Motion on Cross-Community Working Groups
Alan Greenberg
alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Wed Jan 18 15:54:37 UTC 2012
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
>recommendationsjoint 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
More information about the At-Large
mailing list