[EURO-Discuss] [Fwd: Clarifications Regarding Staff Summary-Analysis of Stakeholder Group Charter Public Forum]
Nick Ashton-Hart
nick.ashton-hart at icann.org
Mon Aug 10 05:06:08 CDT 2009
Dear Bill:
As you addressed the question in the first paragraph to me, I'm
replying, but as I didn't compose the staff summary Rob is really the
better person to say what was intended by the paragraph in question, so
I've copied him in.
That said, I don't believe that Rob intended (or that what he wrote
actually suggests) characterises everything she said as being from ALAC
- in fact it is made quite clear that her comment is a compilation of
the previously-expressed views of the ALAC, and not an Advisory.
I would also note that whilst it is not mentioned, Alan's statement to
the consultation period seems salutary in respect of understanding more
clearly what the issues were with the previous comments made on previous
drafts by the ALAC with respect to your third paragraph.
I hope this is helpful; I'm sure Rob will reply on his own behalf in due
course.
William Drake wrote:
> Hi Nick
>
> Thanks for this. Let me make sure I understand what Rob's saying.
> CLO's personal statement endorsing the SIC charter can properly be
> characterized by staff as an ALAC endorsement of the charter because
> a) the staff summary does not purport to address every specific
> argument (but simply to mischaracterize them when convenient?) and b)
> her message was prefaced by a disclaimer stating that she was
> presenting a synopsis of ALAC conversations from before the SIC
> charter was even produced. So ALAC did not actually have to have
> discussed the SIC charter, much less have reached consensus on it, in
> order for staff to characterize her position as ALAC's. Do I have
> that right?
>
> Interesting parallel: I asked Rob in a GNSO council meeting, and
> reiterated in my submission to the public comment period, that
> statements made in support of the NCUC version by NCUC members and
> hundreds (counting the Internet Governance Caucus etc) of external
> supporters in the public comment period ending 15 April be taken into
> account in the summary of the PC ending 23 July. The reasons for
> doing so were straightforward: there was no reason to believe that the
> organizations and individuals that said they supported the NCUC model
> and therefore rejected the opposite model had changed their positions,
> so they should not be required to all mobilize and restate their
> stances a couple months later, in the summer travel season (although
> some did). The suggestion was not acted upon or even mentioned in the
> staff summary.
>
> So: a synopsis of ALAC conversations during the previous PC period, in
> which it was concluded that there was no consensus in ALAC on the
> charters, can be cited as an ALAC endorsement of a version that was
> never discussed or agreed on. But a substantial number of comments
> from NCUC and its supporters during the same previous PC period
> that unambiguously supported the NCUC model and rejected the
> alternative did not merit mention. And in any event, civil society
> objections to the SIC charter in the July PC period should sort of be
> discounted because, the staff summary says, "well over half of the
> responses appeared to be a direct or indirect [fuzzy math?] result of
> a letter writing campaign initiated by Robin Gross." Outreach
> soliciting the public comments ICANN was soliciting renders those
> comments suspect, if it is done by NCUC.
>
> Thank you for clarifying once again how ICANN's bottom-up,
> transparent, and accountable community processes work.
>
> Best,
>
> Bill
>
>
>
> On Aug 7, 2009, at 7:48 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
>
>> Dear All:
>>
>> As a couple of queries have come in from Bill and Adam with respect
>> to the staff summary of the NCSG public comment period, Rob has sent
>> along the below.
>>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: Clarifications Regarding Staff Summary-Analysis of
>> Stakeholder Group Charter Public Forum
>> Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2009 08:50:47 -0700
>> From: Robert Hoggarth <robert.hoggarth at icann.org>
>> To: Nick Ashton-Hart <Nick.Ashton-Hart at icann.org>
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear Nick:
>>
>> I understand that there have been some recent discussion within the
>> At-Large community regarding the Staff Summary/Analysis (S/A) of the
>> submissions in the GNSO Stakeholder Group Charter Forum that closed
>> on 24 July.- http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#stakeholder -
>> and particularly the reference the S/A document makes to the comments
>> submitted by ALAC Chair Cheryl Langdon-Orr.
>>
>> As the staff person responsible for that document, I wanted to make
>> sure that I cleared up any potential confusion in the attribution
>> assigned to Cheryl’s submission in the S/A. At the beginning of
>> every S/A document we clearly include the caution to the reader that:
>>
>> “This document is intended to broadly and comprehensively
>> summarize the comments of the various contributors to this forum
>> but not to address every specific argument or position stated by
>> any or all contributors. The Staff recommends that readers
>> interested in specific aspects of any of the summarized comments
>> or the full statements of others refer directly to the originally
>> posted contributions.”
>>
>>
>> Further, with respect to the specific comments submitted by Cheryl, I
>> reproduced verbatim the disclaimer that she provided at the top of
>> her submission. Footnote one at the beginning of the S/A document reads:
>>
>> “[1] The Submission by Cheryl Langdon-Orr specifically noted the
>> following disclaimer, ‘This comment is intended to ensure that
>> the Board Structural Improvements Committee (SIC) is aware of and
>> takes into account in this current public comment period the
>> previous activities, views and opinions, including Advice to the
>> Board, and ratified Statements of the At-Large Advisory Committee
>> (ALAC) and the At-Large Community with specific reference to the
>> development of the new structure of the GNSO, its Council and the
>> Stakeholder Group model. This is not a formal or ratified
>> statement or comment per se but rather a synopsis of those
>> previously provided in various fora to date.’ For identification
>> purposes this document uses the ‘ALAC’ initials to refer to the
>> submission.”
>>
>>
>> If for any reason, Cheryl would like to clarify her comments or if
>> she thinks the initials I used to identify her comments were
>> inappropriate, please have her send me an email
>> at robert.hoggarth at icann.org and I will work with the web-admin and
>> tech-support teams to re-open the Forum record to insert any
>> clarifications she might want to make to her submission.
>>
>> Besr,
>>
>> Rob Hoggarth
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> --
>> Regards,
>>
>>
>>
>> Nick Ashton-Hart
>> Director for At-Large
>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>> Tel: +33 (450) 42 81 83
>> USA Tel: +1 (310) 301-8637
>> Fax: : +41 (22) 594-85-44
>> Mobile: (Switzerland): +41 79 595 5468
>> email: nick.ashton-hart at icann.org
>> Win IM: ashtonhart at hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart at mac.com /
>> Skype: nashtonhart
>> Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart
>
> ***********************************************************
> William J. Drake
> Senior Associate
> Centre for International Governance
> Graduate Institute of International and
> Development Studies
> Geneva, Switzerland
> william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch
> <mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch>
> www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html
> <http://www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html>
> ***********************************************************
>
--
--
Regards,
Nick Ashton-Hart
Director for At-Large
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Tel: +33 (450) 42 81 83
USA Tel: +1 (310) 301-8637
Fax: : +41 (22) 594-85-44
Mobile: (Switzerland): +41 79 595 5468
email: nick.ashton-hart at icann.org
Win IM: ashtonhart at hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart at mac.com /
Skype: nashtonhart
Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart
More information about the EURO-Discuss
mailing list