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

Fri Jan 20 16:16:50 UTC 2012

Great job, Bill.  All being well, I get to SJO half past noon.  So if the
meeting is after 2p, I shall make every effort to be there.

Cheers,
- Carlton

==============================
Carlton A Samuels
Mobile: 876-818-1799
*Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
=============================

On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 8:56 AM, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>