As the person on this list with perhaps the most liaising (assuming that is a word) experience, I feel obliged to contribute to this. One of the reasons that I have taken on the GNSO Liaison role for three years, is because I have generally been treated in that group as an equal. Despite the rules that say that I have no vote and cannot make motions, in pretty much all other ways I have been accepted and even welcomed as a full participant. This has been exceedingly gratifying for me, and I hope that the GNSO discussions have benefited as well. Clearly there are responsibilities that I have (and hopefully have carried out moderately well) that are formal "Liaison". But I have not been limited to those. There are some qualifications that must be made: - I have tried not to preach the beliefs of ALAC and At-large other than to pass on information as appropriate for a Liaison. To a very large extent, the GNSO has returned the courtesy and not roasted me over positions that ALAC/At-Large have taken, nor castigated me because they do not agree with everything I say. - I have hopefully made it clear when I am speaking on my own behalf and not passing on a formal At-Large/ALAC position (and to be clear, most of the discussions in the GNSO are not ones that I have been formally instructed on by the ALAC). - At times during discussions of GNSO internal matters (for instance travel funding) I have generally remained silent other than to occasionally point out matters of fact. And even those, several senior GNSO people have told me that I really should participate fully in even those. - There have been a few times when it is clear that neither my personal views not those of At-Large agree with the general GNSO direction, and I have said so and then stayed out of it. Perhaps this comes under the do-not-preach edict. - I try to be sensitive to the fact that I am a Liaison and try not to dominate the conversation. I have not always done this well, but I have NEVER been criticized for it even when I have failed to be somewhat demure. So from my perspective, it comes down to clarity with respect to which hat you are wearing at the time, not preaching or trying to get converts, hopefully making useful contributions and definitely learning a lot. With your relationship to EURALO, all of this should be an easy fit for you, and I for one would welcome more than just "liaising" on your part. But of course, you need to mold the job into something that both you and the ALAC feel comfortable with. Alan At 25/09/2009 12:28 PM, William Drake wrote:

Hi

On Sep 24, 2009, at 6:39 PM, Vanda Scartezini wrote:

...

Welcome! And we expect a lot of contribution from you.

Thanks for the welcome, but you probably shouldn't expect a lot of contribution, as it's not my role. I'm just here to liaise (I don't know if ICANN has a standard affirmation of responsibilities for such people, if so someone please point me to it), which I assume means I should just pipe up when you want to understand NCUC's position/ thinking/action on some issue, consider some communication or collaboration with NCUC, etc. Anything beyond such items is probably beyond my remit. Indeed, if folks want to vent about what louts we NCUCers are or whatever, I'll do my best to resist intervening on personal stuff (might be a little harder if it's about me) and to stick to inter-organizational matters. If I fail to, just remind me. And anything that's obviously sensitive I'll treat as such and check before sharing externally, etc.

Just for the record.

Cheers,

Bill

_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org

At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac

At 25/09/2009 01:38 PM, William Drake wrote:

On Sep 25, 2009, at 6:59 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote:

...

With your relationship to EURALO, all of this should be an easy fit for you, and I for one would welcome more than just "liaising" on your part. But of course, you need to mold the job into something that both you and the ALAC feel comfortable with.

Thanks Alan. Your description matches well how you've operated in the council to my knowledge. This context seems a bit more charged at the moment, so I just don't want anyone feeling like there's this foreign entity in the room who's overstepping, or they can't say what they think or it'll be reported externally in the wrong way, or whatever.

The context is indeed more charged (perhaps that wins this month's award for understatement). What is on the main ALAC list (the one being used here) is fully public, so there are always potentially many foreign entities in the room. The ALAC also has an "internal" list which is not publicly viewable. It is generally supposed to be used for things where things such as travel plans or personnel issues can be discussed, but is also available if for cultural of other reasons, someone feels the need to say something that is not fully public. If you feel that having access to that list puts you in an awkward position because you cannot pass it on to your NCUC colleagues, you are of course free to be ask to be taken off. But I hope that will not be necessary. We can always plot using point-to-point e-mail if needed! ;-) (In case it is not clear, that was a joke.)

I actually would like to help facilitate inter-species understanding and conflict management if I can, while recognizing that I do have clear preferences on some matters where's there's been disagreement (e.g. the charter). Anyway, as long as folks understand the intent I think things will gravitate toward the right balance, and if my views on anything are desired it won't be hard to elicit them.

You certainly have a more land-mine laden path to follow than I do in the GNSO (except during last summer's GNSO restructuring exercise), and you do want to stay as a Liaison and not a negotiator. Although I do love the "inter-species" expression, perhaps we need to decide that we are the same species with different views and ideas. Alan

Cheers,

Bill

PS: Uh, just got an email notice that Milton has posted a reply to replies, sigh...it's characteristically assertive but at least sticks closer to the charter/constituency issue, on which I do think we really should have had serious and reasonably inclusive dialogue before and are dealing with the consequences of that failure now.