[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 07:17:48 CDT 2009
Dear Bill, with respect to your comment:
"I don't see a formally approved statement
at http://www.atlarge.icann.org/correspondence. "
Please find the following, all in the correspondence section of
atlarge.icann.org:
24th September 2008: ALAC Statement on Stakeholder Group Openness:
http://www.atlarge.icann.org/correspondence/correspondence-24sep08.htm
14th August 2008: ALAC Statement to the Board on the Structure of the
GNSO Council:
http://www.atlarge.icann.org/announcements/announcement-14aug08-en.htm
Hope this is useful.
William Drake wrote:
> Hi Nick,
>
> Thanks for the reply. I don't want to go on beating a dead horse, but
> just for the record:
>
> On Aug 10, 2009, at 12:06 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> Here's the language:
>
> Finally, although the majority of comments were strongly in support of
> returning to the original NCUC Charter version, ALAC favored the SIC‟s
> NCSG Charter that, “best meets the aims of the new GNSO Model and the
> Boards criteria, which we support, and believe is (with the additional
> version changes as at July 19th ) being essentially met.” Continuing
> in this vein, ALAC noted, “Maturity and development of the new design
> GNSO and specifically the parity and viability of the User House will
> benefit greatly with the „fresh start‟ this Charter in our opinion
> provides and it should be noted that in it we can see that the
> opinions and views brought forward in our processes, activities and
> meetings on the matter have been recognised, heard and considered.” [p.10]
>
> Two commenters did not concur with the majority view. ALAC said, “At
> each of the User House Meetings since Cairo the ALAC has advised a
> lack of support and various concerns about the NCUC developed NCSG
> Charter version.” [p. 11]
>
> Whatever Rob intended, I think most people would read "ALAC favored
> the SIC's NCSG Charter" as meaning that ALAC favored the SIC's NCSG
> Charter, etc.
>
>>
>> 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.
>
> Alan's statement
> http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-stakeholder-charters/msg00069.html
> "reiterate[s] that these comments are consistent with formal
> statements made by the ALAC over the last year." I don't see a
> formally approved statement
> at http://www.atlarge.icann.org/correspondence. I do see in the
> previous comment period a message from
> Alan http://forum.icann.org/lists/sg-petitions-charters/msg00020.html
> that says "The following comment has the explicit support of a number
> of ALAC members, but has not yet been subjected to a formal ALAC vote.
> It does reflect the comments that have been made by ALAC members in
> recent months [checking the list record, about a handful]. The ALAC
> is divided on the support of the proposal submitted by Robin Gross of
> the NCUC. Some members feel that although there are some problems with
> the proposal, it generally addresses their concerns, and in
> particular, the de-linking of Council seats from Constituencies is a
> very good move in the right direction. Problems notwithstanding, the
> proposal should receive Board approval. Others feel that the issues
> still outstanding are sufficient to withhold Board support at this time."
>
> It is not obvious how "ALAC favored the SIC's NCSG Charter" can be
> deemed "consistent with" the earlier "The ALAC is divided on the
> support of the proposal submitted by Robin Gross of the NCUC..."
> especially given the lack of discussion, much less consensus or a
> formal position, on the SIC's NCSG Charter. But no matter, we all
> understand where we are here.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Bill
>
>
>>
>> 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