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

[Alan Greenberg]

I am a bit confused by this statement and by similar ones made by 
others. I completely agree with the sentiment, but am unsure how it 
applies here.

The issue being discussed is what principles should govern (if indeed 
there should be any) how "Cross Constituency Working Groups" will be 
formed, run and report. In the worst case, if these rules are 
repugnant to At-Large, or will not satisfy our needs, then we will 
not likely enter into such groups (at least in the cases where there 
is this discontinuity). It does not say anything about any other 
working constructs that we may enter into, nor what we do with the 
results of a CCWG (or any other WG), nor what we do in other venues 
(including some future multi-party WGs that are not deemed to be "CCWG"s).

So how is it construed that these rules (if indeed they end up being 
used) can alter our Bylaw mandated role?

Bottom line is that just as we cannot force the GNSO to enter into a 
relationship that they find inappropriate, they similarly have no 
ability to force us into a role that we do not want.

Alan

At 19/01/2012 10:40 AM, Carlton Samuels wrote:

>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.