On 17 January 2012 15:23, William Drake <william.drake@uzh.ch> wrote:
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.
Hi Bill. Thanks for the update, and for the efforts of you and the NCSG on the issue. The GNSO is welcome to do whatever it wants to unilaterally regarding its internal processes, but it cannot impose such regulation on others. As happened with the JAS group, I for one will not abide by any imposed regimen that prohibits an important effort from moving forward because a community (or group of communities) refuses to agree on a charter (or tries to scale back an existing one). Specifically, I would certainly not agree to any move that artificially limited ALAC's bylaw-mandated scope by excluding the interests of end-users. It is significant -- and very telling -- that the GNSO policy about working with other constituencies was itself formed in isolation from these constituencies. This was definitely an opportunity missed, but I won't lose sleep over it. It's my understanding that the At-Large Community has always been eager to participate in cross-community groups, but we will not have the terms of that participation dictated to us. - Evan