On 19 January 2012 10:56, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
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.
I am not so sure about this. Even if the two SOAC entities disagree, on some point or points, the exercise is still valuable as the points of disagreement can be discussed ad nauseum and documented in a final report. Then each of the entities can go forth with the document doing as they see fit.
We have a template of that kind of outcome, in a sense, in what happened in the Vertical Integration WG. While not IIRC a full CCWG it did have significant At-Large participation. To the extent that the VI WG could not agree, it reported as much and laid the issues out for the Board to judge -- as the Board ultimately did. IMO, having a VI-type split within ICANN's communities on a different issue would not invalidate the purpose of bringing them togerher on that issue. Consensus is always desirable, but its absence can't be interpreted as a direction not to act. If nothing more is done in such circumstances than to bring clarity to the points of divergence, that is itself quite useful to a final arbiter. Then again, there could be agreement on sub-issues and maybe even a partial closing of the gap. We'll never know until we try, but the proposed GNSO guidelines would prevent that kind of thing from even starting. - Evan
This is still better then them not knowing each other's POV.
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.
Not a marriage but perhaps a brief interlude.
avri
- 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