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
No Objection at all I support this... Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) On 13 January 2011 10:17, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
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
Hi Olivier, You should just have asked me about the location ;o) They are all getting together in Geneva. Now isn't that peculiar but it isn't especially when all of them will be there for the IGF Open Consultations and MAG meeting......and yes, its a closed space and non one else from the community is invited............very accurate indeed Olivier... ...and just in case anyone may has noticed it or not, if you go to the sponsorship page of the ICANN meeting page at http://meetings.icann.org/sponsorship , ICANN has increased the sponsorship costs by factors of 2.5 to 10, so much about "multi-stakeholder" and bottom-up stuff. Top sponsorship per ICANN meeting is half a million dollars and the minimum sponsorship to have a stand was increased to USD 25K from USD 10K. This excludes alot of stakaeholders and people that may want to also set-up stall and raise awareness about their groups. This creates a feeling of shaking trust (anti-trust) in ICANN practices and motivations. On the other hand within Internet Governance Has ICANN been scared down with what is happening within the IGF with regards to the intergovernmental control of the forum and pushing ICANN behind as one of the members of the multistakeholdership that no one listened to during the open consultations or is this bending to the pressure being built inside? The pressure on ICANN is not only being built from inside only, its flowing from the IGF and ITU as well. Would governments and ICANN control or technically coordinate an Internet that had no more users because they scared them off with the threat of arrests, violation of their rights, failing protection, abuse of powers etc??? I know it sounds like a fairy tale but just think for a moment, is the Internet a space for innovation and human socio-economic growth or is it a means to control? Which side are these guys on now? Okay back to the general thing................I could have gained more insight in to this from the IGF community but I am not getting supported to go to the Geneva meetings either for the IGF or so............... No objection from me as well but now you have the confirmed location. Why, because IGF activities and ICANN - GAC interaction are going to happen around the same space.....and by the way, how did everyone forget ITU and GAC? Best Fouad On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 4:17 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
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
Hello Fouad, thanks for your kind reply. On 13/01/2011 01:36, Fouad Bajwa wrote :
You should just have asked me about the location ;o) They are all getting together in Geneva. Now isn't that peculiar but it isn't especially when all of them will be there for the IGF Open Consultations and MAG meeting......and yes, its a closed space and non one else from the community is invited............very accurate indeed Olivier...
Actually - this is not at all the news I got fresh from today. Geneva now looks unlikely because of the Geneva Auto Show 3-13 March, if due to happen at end of Feb. Potential issues with hotels & flights. Of course if that was a closed meeting, it would not matter - but the majority of voices I have heard at ICANN ask for the meeting not to be closed, so... As for the rest of your message, I would not jump to conclusions yet. :-) Kind regards, Olivier -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
Hmm, true but I have been there during that season........shouldn't be much of an issue in Geneva especially when they might taken someplace around the UN centre.....but again checked, it is still for Geneva.............let's see what happens on that front... Re Conclusions.......I guess I got a bit mixed up in icann and igf didn't I ;o) post govt interference syndrome ;o) But still, pressure is big and its being felt! -- fooo On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 6:16 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
Hello Fouad,
thanks for your kind reply.
On 13/01/2011 01:36, Fouad Bajwa wrote :
You should just have asked me about the location ;o) They are all getting together in Geneva. Now isn't that peculiar but it isn't especially when all of them will be there for the IGF Open Consultations and MAG meeting......and yes, its a closed space and non one else from the community is invited............very accurate indeed Olivier...
Actually - this is not at all the news I got fresh from today. Geneva now looks unlikely because of the Geneva Auto Show 3-13 March, if due to happen at end of Feb. Potential issues with hotels & flights. Of course if that was a closed meeting, it would not matter - but the majority of voices I have heard at ICANN ask for the meeting not to be closed, so...
As for the rest of your message, I would not jump to conclusions yet. :-)
Kind regards,
Olivier
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
I support the letter, but have a few comments: 1. The sentence "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." needs to be either simplified, somewhat re-worded, or at least have some comma's added. As it is, it is difficult to parse. 2. You should make it clear if you are asking for the specified people to be allowed to attend, or are also asking for funding for their attendance. 3. It is unclear to me why you are saying that selected GNSO people (and particularly not just GNSO Council people) be allowed to attend, but no equivalent for ALAC. 4. In the rationale for meeting type, "inconvenients" should "inconveniences". Alan At 12/01/2011 06:17 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
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
- 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)". Why you are restricting the Community Representatives to the GNSO only while the cross community working groups are composed of people from all SOs and ACs? ------------------------------------------------------------------ Tijani BEN JEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations Phone : + 216 70 825 231 Mobile : + 216 98 330 114 Fax : + 216 70 825 231 ------------------------------------------------------------------ -----Message d'origine----- De : alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] De la part de Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Envoyé : jeudi 13 janvier 2011 00:18 À : ALAC Working List Objet : [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
Upon reflection I would have a simple request for chairs and co-chairs from all ACs and SOs. GNSO's internal politics and its ability (or lack thereof) to have its chairs and vice chairs serve as effective liaisons to this meeting, are not our problems to solve here. (Arguably they're not ours to solve at any time.) ALAC is arguably even more diverse than GNSO -- though in very different ways -- yet we are not thrashing about painstakingly trying to accommodate that diversity for the sake of this meeting. We threaten to have the Board and GAC conclude 'to hell with all of you -- if the choice is either closed or a zoo we'll choose closed'. Simplicity is in order. Chairs and co-chairs of constitient bodies and that's it. Anything else introduces an unwelcome level of complexity given the timeframe and the intended purpose of the meeting. This is, after all, a Board/GAC consultation. The rest are observers and bystanders helping to ensure transparency. The cesspool that is GNSO structure is not about to be solved at this time. Don't allow this request to get dragged into it. - Evan On 13 January 2011 06:54, Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa@fmai.org> wrote:
- 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)".
Why you are restricting the “Community Representatives” to the GNSO only while the cross community working groups are composed of people from all SOs and ACs?
------------------------------------------------------------------
Tijani BEN JEMAA
Executive Director
Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations
Phone : + 216 70 825 231
Mobile : + 216 98 330 114
Fax : + 216 70 825 231
------------------------------------------------------------------
-----Message d'origine----- De : alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] De la part de Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Envoyé : jeudi 13 janvier 2011 00:18 À : ALAC Working List Objet : [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
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________ 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
-- - Evan
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
Hello Carlton, thanks for your kind comments - my answers below. Le 13/01/2011 15:36, SAMUELS,Carlton A a écrit :
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.
The "back-channel" work to reach the GAC has not failed, but when speaking to GAC members informally, one actually speaks to... individual GAC members. If you wish to speak to the GAC as a whole, a more united voice to the GAC Chair obviously gives more weight to our argument than an informal channel. This statement is structured in order for it to be directly cut/pasted for comment to all GAC members. I very much welcome alternative text if parts of it appear "wishy-washy" - that's why I am asking for your input. That said, I don't wish to make it too long an email. Everyone knows what At-Large stands for. Also - we're not only aiming this letter at the GAC: the ICANN Board also has a say in this. Will the two tango in private or in public? As for this meeting requiring the exception - the exception would be for the meeting to be closed. The default, as interpreted from the Bylaws is for the meeting to be open. Kind regards, Olivier -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
In this environment, it is always useful to stay with principle and on message of principle in these matters. I would just say "since we are not apprised of a sufficient reason for a closed meeting, we would strongly recommend the default open meeting. At the minimum, we should expect interested parties accommodated as observers". If you like, you might further remind the participants of the several commitments to transparency in all dealings affirmed to the AoC. The parsing as to who qualifies to enter the pearly gates - this is the 'solomonic' reference, ala King Solomon of Biblical fame - comes across as unctuous...maybe even special pleading by its select representation described; Tijani's point, btw. Carlton From: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond [mailto:ocl@gih.com] Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 2:18 PM To: SAMUELS,Carlton A Cc: ALAC Working List Subject: Re: [ALAC] Urgent: proposed email to GAC/ Board Chairs Hello Carlton, thanks for your kind comments - my answers below. Le 13/01/2011 15:36, SAMUELS,Carlton A a écrit : 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. The "back-channel" work to reach the GAC has not failed, but when speaking to GAC members informally, one actually speaks to... individual GAC members. If you wish to speak to the GAC as a whole, a more united voice to the GAC Chair obviously gives more weight to our argument than an informal channel. This statement is structured in order for it to be directly cut/pasted for comment to all GAC members. I very much welcome alternative text if parts of it appear "wishy-washy" - that's why I am asking for your input. That said, I don't wish to make it too long an email. Everyone knows what At-Large stands for. Also - we're not only aiming this letter at the GAC: the ICANN Board also has a say in this. Will the two tango in private or in public? As for this meeting requiring the exception - the exception would be for the meeting to be closed. The default, as interpreted from the Bylaws is for the meeting to be open. Kind regards, Olivier -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 10.0.1191 / Virus Database: 1435/3377 - Release Date: 01/13/11
Agreed! Fatimata On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 10:40 PM, SAMUELS,Carlton A < carlton.samuels@uwimona.edu.jm> wrote:
In this environment, it is always useful to stay with principle and on message of principle in these matters. I would just say "since we are not apprised of a sufficient reason for a closed meeting, we would strongly recommend the default open meeting. At the minimum, we should expect interested parties accommodated as observers".
If you like, you might further remind the participants of the several commitments to transparency in all dealings affirmed to the AoC.
The parsing as to who qualifies to enter the pearly gates - this is the 'solomonic' reference, ala King Solomon of Biblical fame - comes across as unctuous...maybe even special pleading by its select representation described; Tijani's point, btw.
Carlton
From: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond [mailto:ocl@gih.com] Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 2:18 PM To: SAMUELS,Carlton A Cc: ALAC Working List Subject: Re: [ALAC] Urgent: proposed email to GAC/ Board Chairs
Hello Carlton,
thanks for your kind comments - my answers below.
Le 13/01/2011 15:36, SAMUELS,Carlton A a écrit : 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.
The "back-channel" work to reach the GAC has not failed, but when speaking to GAC members informally, one actually speaks to... individual GAC members. If you wish to speak to the GAC as a whole, a more united voice to the GAC Chair obviously gives more weight to our argument than an informal channel. This statement is structured in order for it to be directly cut/pasted for comment to all GAC members. I very much welcome alternative text if parts of it appear "wishy-washy" - that's why I am asking for your input. That said, I don't wish to make it too long an email. Everyone knows what At-Large stands for. Also - we're not only aiming this letter at the GAC: the ICANN Board also has a say in this. Will the two tango in private or in public?
As for this meeting requiring the exception - the exception would be for the meeting to be closed. The default, as interpreted from the Bylaws is for the meeting to be open.
Kind regards,
Olivier
--
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
________________________________
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 10.0.1191 / Virus Database: 1435/3377 - Release Date: 01/13/11 _______________________________________________ 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
-- Fatimata Seye Sylla
Olivier, I support the letter with one suggestion : Have the chairs and/or co-chairs of the constituencies attend the close meeting as observers. Fatimata -- Fatimata Seye Sylla
Hello Fatimata, thanks for your kind follow-up. Le 13/01/2011 17:23, Fatimata Seye Sylla a écrit :
Olivier,
I support the letter with one suggestion : Have the chairs and/or co-chairs of the constituencies attend the close meeting as observers.
I think that asking for this will be met with immediate resistance from some GAC/Board members. We do ask for this in a somehow more courteous way by saying: "- 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." This leaves the decision to GAC and Board. It lets the door to open potentially, but does not kick it in. Kind regards, Olivier -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
participants (8)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Cheryl Langdon-Orr -
Evan Leibovitch -
Fatimata Seye Sylla -
Fouad Bajwa -
Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond -
SAMUELS,Carlton A -
Tijani BEN JEMAA