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@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+2...
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@uzh.ch www.mediachange.ch/people/william-j-drake www.williamdrake.org ****************************************************
_______________________________________________ ALAC-Internal mailing list ALAC-Internal@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+(ALA...)
At-Large Website: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@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@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org