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

[Christopher Wilkinson]

Hmmm . . .  I find it rather strange that one SO would issue,  
unilaterally, draft "Principles for CWGs". That should be a matter for  
the Board if it is controversial, or for Legal Counsel if it is not.

Also, if the results of a CWG have to go back into a PDP, and also  
have to be endorsed by the "chartering" SOs/ACs, then I do wonder what  
is the point of the exercise.

Finally, the last clause of these draft principles notwithstanding,  
certain issues are rather urgent. The proposed resolutions do not  
really reflect that fact.

Regards,

CW


On 19 Jan 2012, at 16:40, Carlton Samuels wrote:

> First, thank you Bill for taking the time to bring this to the At- 
> Large's
> attention.
>
> Second, I read the guidelines as an attempt to lay out 'aspirational'
> principles, some of which tend to be overbearing.
>
> Third, on principle, the ALAC must reject any framework espoused by  
> this
> proposal that undermines our by-law mandated role.  In this context  
> any
> notion of agreeing to rules that a) limit our ability to communicate  
> up,
> down, sideways or backwards b) constrain or hobble our ability to  
> explore,
> act or otherwise engage any party or constituency in furtherance of  
> the
> public interest must be summarily rejected.
>
> Fourth, if the presumptive At-Large position varies widely from the  
> GNSO
> then the utility of a CWG is severely limited so we should recognize  
> such
> an eventuality and act accordingly.
>
> So on balance of the facts as I know them and while I'm all for
> collaborating, when it is clear this is the wrong way to go then  
> let's just
> carry on and recognize there will be no marriage of convenience.
>
> - Carlton
>
>
>
> Fourth
>
>
> ==============================
> Carlton A Samuels
> Mobile: 876-818-1799
> *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
> =============================
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 3:23 PM, William Drake  
> <william.drake at uzh.ch> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> As NCUC liaison to At Large I thought I should bring the following  
>> to your
>> attention.
>>
>> Some here may recall that there was quite a bit of controversy and  
>> debate
>> in the GNSO Council last year about the formation and operation of  
>> cross
>> community working groups.  This arose in particular with regard to  
>> the JAS
>> process, various aspects of which stimulated a range of concerns  
>> across the
>> three industry SGs.  Without reliving all the back and forth, these
>> included perceptions that the GNSO's role in policy development was  
>> being
>> usurped or at least nibbled at, concerns about the channels and  
>> procedures
>> through which JAS progress was reported out and the board  
>> responded, the
>> extent to which the chartering organizations should operate in  
>> synch, and
>> so on. In consequence, there has been a widespread desire among  
>> these SGs
>> to lay down clear rules of the road to regulate how CWGs  
>> function.   In
>> Council discussions NCUC members argued for maintaining some  
>> flexibility
>> and subsidiarity to avoid tying hands too much, and noted inter  
>> alia that
>> if we'd followed a strictly regula!
>> tory approach ALAC would not have been able to help move the JAS  
>> process
>> along when the GNSO was, well, moving slower.  It would be fair to  
>> say that
>> we were pretty much alone in these views.
>>
>> In October, the Council launched a drafting team to propose guiding
>> principles for CWGs going forward that would respond to the various
>> concerns.  That team has now completed its work and a motion to  
>> approve its
>> Principles is on the agenda of our 19 January meeting.
>> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+19+January+2012
>>
>> People may wish to have a look at the Principles
>> http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/draft-principles-for-cwgs-23dec11- 
>> en.pdf,
>> which specify that all SO/ACs involved should adopt and follow a  
>> single
>> joint charter for CWGs, that CWGs outputs do not express community
>> consensus per se, and so on.
>>
>> If there are any views that people would like to have noted in the  
>> Council
>> discussion and vote, please let me know asap.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Bill
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ***************************************************
>> William J. Drake
>> International Fellow & Lecturer
>> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
>> University of Zurich, Switzerland
>> william.drake at uzh.ch
>> www.mediachange.ch/people/william-j-drake
>> www.williamdrake.org
>> ****************************************************
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ALAC-Internal mailing list
>> ALAC-Internal at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-internal
>>
>> ALAC Wiki:
>> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
>>
>> At-Large Website: http://atlarge.icann.org
>>
> _______________________________________________
> At-Large mailing list
> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
>
> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org