OCL: I'm presuming the back channel work to reach the GAC has failed, yes? Assuming it is the case, then to my mind much of the preamble might not be necessary; I think distillation is the watchword here, especially if you go with "is made with agreement of the ALAC"; it a slightly different take on the ALAC statement. Should be best advised to just *state* the issue of concern and say what the ALAC-supported posture is. If it is the case the back channel contact was successful but the conversation inconclusive, then being 'solomonic' about it comes across as wishy-washy. State the principle that ALAC supports, inclusive of the circumstance where the ALAC would support a variant action, acknowledge that this meeting *might* require the exception and reiterate a clear position on why the ALAC would find the exception acceptable. Best, Carlton From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 6:18 PM To: ALAC Working List Subject: [ALAC] Urgent: proposed email to GAC/ Board Chairs Dear ALAC members, you might be aware that there is currently much internal debate going on within GAC and the Board, and elsewhere, about the organisation of the summit which will bring GAC and the Board together. A significant tug of war appears to be taking place between partisans of the open meeting model and those of the closed meeting model. Another area of unknown unknown is where and when this meeting is due to take place. Please find enclosed below, a letter which I propose emailing to the Chair of the GAC and the Chair of the ICANN Board. Again, time is of the essence, so please read this: ** I shall be sending this in 24H if there is no objection from the ALAC ** The aim is to catalyse the finding of a solution by suggesting one that's agreeable to everyone and avoid a situation where the results of such a meeting hold no legitimacy due to a flawed process. I look forward to your feedback. Thanks, Olivier --- body of the letter --- The following is a suggestion which I make in an individual capacity, after having listened to the argument of many people involved in and out of the decision process. [ this will be replaced by: "which is made with agreement of ALAC" ] Proposed meeting Date: Mid-February Rationale: there are concerns that a meeting taking place at the end of the month will not give enough time for the Board to take notice, discuss and act on the points raised in the meeting, in time for the SFO meeting. Similarly, the GAC members would not have enough time to report to their governments and their stakeholders. As a result, there would be a real threat that the meetings in SFO would not contribute positively to the possibility of pressing the "go" button in SFO. More delays. More unhappy constituencies. Proposed meeting type: a mix of open & closed Rationale: both closed and open models have their advantages & inconvenients. Proponents of the closed model argue that there are several points of internal GAC & Board relationship building which might not benefit from being public - and could stop from GAC or Board members from being free to say what they wish to say during the meeting. This argument certainly has its validity. Proponents of an open meeting argue that ICANN, a champion of the open model of transparency, cannot politically have a closed meeting between the GAC and the Board. In the light of the uproar released by civil society triggered by the recent CSTD decisions regarding IGF-related governance, it is a simple case of eating one's own dog food. Opponents of the open model argue that if the meeting is going to be turned into a "circus" with people after people coming onto the microphone and giving mixed signals, this would be a waste of time. I therefore propose: - that the meeting, likely to last 2 days to be thorough, should be composed of a mix of closed and open meetings, with an emphasis that the closed meeting time shall constitute less than 40% of the total time allocated for meetings. - that it shall be possible to follow the open meeting remotely, through an Adobe Connect room, Internet streaming and a telephone bridge, to a standard no lower than the standard proposed at an ICANN Annual General Meeting (AGM). - that the Chair and Vice Chairs of SOs and ACs, plus a select number of people in the GNSO (number to be determined but akin to a selection of people taking part in Cross Community Working Groups (CWGs)) shall be invited to make comments and take part in the discussion in *some* of the open sessions. They shall be called "Community Representatives (CR)". - that the Chair and/or Vice Chairs of SOs and ACs might, at a common GAC-Board invitation, appear or make statements for a part of the closed meetings, provided there is consensus between GAC and Board on their presence. - that the rest of the people following the meeting shall have observer status but shall have full freedom to be in touch at all times with their Community Representatives and shall therefore be able to speak through them. Yours sincerely, --- cut here --- -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 10.0.1191 / Virus Database: 1435/3375 - Release Date: 01/12/11