[At-Large] [ALAC-Internal] GNSO Council Motion on Cross-Community Working Groups
evan at telly.org
Thu Jan 19 17:05:37 UTC 2012
On 19 January 2012 10:56, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
> > 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.
> I am not so sure about this. Even if the two SOAC entities disagree, on
> some point or points, the exercise is still valuable as the points of
> disagreement can be discussed ad nauseum and documented in a final report.
> Then each of the entities can go forth with the document doing as they see
We have a template of that kind of outcome, in a sense, in what happened in
the Vertical Integration WG. While not IIRC a full CCWG it did have
significant At-Large participation.
To the extent that the VI WG could not agree, it reported as much and laid
the issues out for the Board to judge -- as the Board ultimately did.
IMO, having a VI-type split within ICANN's communities on a different issue
would not invalidate the purpose of bringing them togerher on that issue.
Consensus is always desirable, but its absence can't be interpreted as a
direction not to act. If nothing more is done in such circumstances than to
bring clarity to the points of divergence, that is itself quite useful to a
final arbiter. Then again, there could be agreement on sub-issues and maybe
even a partial closing of the gap. We'll never know until we try, but the
proposed GNSO guidelines would prevent that kind of thing from even
> This is still better then them not knowing each other's POV.
> > 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
> > carry on and recognize there will be no marriage of convenience.
> Not a marriage but perhaps a brief interlude.
> > - 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>
> >> Hi,
> >> As NCUC liaison to At Large I thought I should bring the following to
> >> attention.
> >> Some here may recall that there was quite a bit of controversy and
> >> in the GNSO Council last year about the formation and operation of cross
> >> community working groups. This arose in particular with regard to the
> >> process, various aspects of which stimulated a range of concerns across
> >> three industry SGs. Without reliving all the back and forth, these
> >> included perceptions that the GNSO's role in policy development was
> >> usurped or at least nibbled at, concerns about the channels and
> >> through which JAS progress was reported out and the board responded, the
> >> extent to which the chartering organizations should operate in synch,
> >> so on. In consequence, there has been a widespread desire among these
> >> 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
> >> 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
> >> 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
> >> Principles is on the agenda of our 19 January meeting.
> >> 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
> >> 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:
> >> 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
> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
More information about the At-Large