[At-Large] [ALAC-Internal] GNSO Council Motion on Cross-Community Working Groups
Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro
salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com
Tue Jan 17 21:38:36 UTC 2012
These are brief comments.
a) Possible Purposes:
i) To provide information and recommendations to the chartering
perhaps ultimately the broader ICANN community) in accordance with the
directions from the chartering organizations.
ii) To provide a discussion forum to achieve greater community
iii) In any event, consensus policy development must occur using current
Organization (SO) and Advisory Committee (AC) rules.
I note that (1)(a)(iii) recognizes SO and AC rules. However, it does not
address situations where these rules may conflict and what is to be done
when there is a conflict of rules.
Aside from the rules, what is to be done when there is a conflict on
positions. The At Large is mandated to highlight positions of end users and
it would be great if this is somehow factored. Suggested draft principle
could be as follows:-
In recognition of At Large's role in highlighting global end users interest
nothing shall take away the rights nor restrict in any way shape or form At
Large's capacity to constantly engage in raising the rights and interests
of end users. Whilst I note that (2)(c)(iii) covers it somewhat but it
appears a trifle inadequate.
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 9:23 AM, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch> wrote:
> As NCUC liaison to At Large I thought I should bring the following to your
> 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.
> People may wish to have a look at the Principles
> 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.
> William J. Drake
> International Fellow & Lecturer
> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
> University of Zurich, Switzerland
> william.drake at uzh.ch
> ALAC-Internal mailing list
> ALAC-Internal at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> ALAC Wiki:
> At-Large Website: http://atlarge.icann.org
Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
Cell: +679 998 2851
More information about the At-Large