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

Fri Jan 20 23:01:36 UTC 2012

Thanks Bill, and thanks for reminding us of the wording of the motion.
It is indeed a starting position and there will be plenty of time to
discuss it across ICANN. Great job in suggesting F2F.
Warmest regards,

Olivier

On 20/01/2012 14:56, William Drake wrote :
> Hi
>
> On the Council call yesterday I asked that discussion of this topic be held back to San Jose so we could have it face to face.  I believe that will happen on the Saturday.  Since Council meetings are open, I would encourage any ALACers who are interested and available to come along and share your perspectives with the Council so these can be taken into consideration before we vote on a motion Wednesday.
>
> Again, on the unilateral imposition meme that seems to be developing, please do bear in mind that what is proposed here is that the Council adopt a negotiation position, not that this would be the end of the story.  The motion states, inter alia,
>
> Resolved, that the GNSO Council hereby approves the Draft Principles for Cross-Community Working Groups for its own guidance and requests staff to disseminate them to the Chairs of the Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees asking them to provide input to the GNSO Council in 60 days on both the principles themselves and the route forward for community-wide adoption or development of a related set of principles for the operation of Cross-Community Working Groups
>
> So I invite you to provide input at the front end, and later on as well, with an eye toward devising something that everyone is comfortable with.
>
> Best,
>
> Bill
>
> On Jan 19, 2012, at 6:38 PM, Christopher Wilkinson wrote:
>
>> 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
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>

-- 
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
http://www.gih.com/ocl.html