To get a few facts on the table: The mandate of this group was not to set CCWG rules, but to establish a baseline for what the GNSO thought was important before entering into discussions with the ALAC, ccNSO, ASO, GAC, or whosoever wanted to participate. That is clear in the motion. Since the GNSO rarely "delegates" responsibility to negotiate on its behalf to its Chair or others, it was felt that it was important to understand the overall issues from the GNSO perspective before entering into multi-lateral discussions (which for practical reasons will surely include a only small subset of the GNSO Council). Moreover, it was felt that input from the GNSO as a whole, and not just the Council was important. That being said, the GNSO did have an interest in ensuring that what it proposed was reasonable and factored in, to the extent possible, the needs of other groups. At the express request of the Council, I participated in this group and was more than a bit active. It is not clear exactly what will come out of the final discussions with other ACs and SOs, but I do not recall anything in the final results of this drafting team that are totally unreasonable. Several of the points are very GNSO-centric (and perhaps ccNSO) in that they repeatedly stipulate that formal "policy" must be carried out under the rules set out in the ICANN Bylaws for such policy development. I personally think that this was not needed, since it is in the Bylaws, but others felt it was good to reiterate. The point that will no doubt be a lightening rod following the JAS group is the stipulation that when formed, a CCWG should have a single charter. Although in the far reaches of my imagination I can come up with reasons that this should not be a rule, but I not at all sure that such edge cases need to be dealt with here. If the interests of the various parties are so different at the start, perhaps a CCWG is not what we need. Note that this principle talks about the FORMATION of a CCWG. I do not believe that we have ever participated in a CCWG that had multiple disagreeing charters at the beginning. It is not clear why one would enter into the creation of such a group if the aims of the participating bodies were not similar. In fact, those who were around may recall that for the JAS group, we did agree on a single charter. Due to a clerical (honestly!) error, one clause was omitted from the version that the GNSO approved. When the charter came up to the ALAC, the ALAC decided to drop that clause as well, as it was felt that it was not sufficiently important to warrant delaying the entire process until it could go back to the GNSO for re-chartering (and we believed that the group WOULD look at that issue regardless of whether it was in the charter). Other CCWGs such as DSSA all had a single charter agreed to by one mechanism or another ahead of time. You will notice that the principles are silent on the issue of re-chartering part-way through a process, the situation where JAS blew up. If you recall the sequence of events there: - the WG came up with a suggested revised charter. - this time it was the ALAC that got to it first, and it was approved. - when it came to the GNSO, there was substantive discomfort and they did radical surgery to it, taking out some parts and adding others (one of which the ALAC really liked). - at that point, the JAS group would have had two charters, which in some cases could be construed as requiring they work in two orthogonal directions at the same time - something that was not tenable. - the ALAC revised its version, making it clear that the JAS charter had a core part that was common to both the GNSO and ALAC, and several other end-products that were unique to the ALAC but did not go against any of the core items. - that was perhaps a bit awkward to work with, but the JAS WG was willing and things proceeded to the eventual VERY successful outcome, with the GNSO supporting all end-products equally, even the ones that they had not included in their charter. Another area that may attract discussion is about the rules that a CCWG will follow. The principles simple say that to the extent possible, the WG rules of the constituent bodies should be followed. If they were all the same, that would clearly be no problem. But in fact, other than the GNSO, I suspect no other organization has such a detailed set of rules. The ALAC, in its own WGs, has generally abided by the GNSO rules where they made sense and ignored those that did not. Perhaps some day the ALAC will formalize what its rules are. Or not. It *is* clear that the rules and certainly the practices currently vary, and although I am sure that every organization would feel comfortable with *their* rules dominating, what will come out of this process is some sort of a compromise, perhaps varying based on which bodies participate. And they will likely vary over time as we get used to these new groups. The principles are wisely completely silent on the issue, other than to say that the charter should specify the rules for any given WG. Note that this set of principles does not attempt to address (nor should they) how one reaches consensus within a given WG. Whatever rules are adopted for that group will need to address it, but it may be specific to the issue and who the chartering bodies are. The GNSO meeting where this will be discussed is on Thursday at 11:00 UTC. If anyone has any input for me as the formal ALAC Liaison, please get it to me as soon as possible (the meeting is at 06:00 my time, so I will be offline for the several hours preceding the meeting). As I cannot make suggestions for formal changes to the motion, please make sure to copy Bill as well. Alan At 17/01/2012 04:29 PM, William Drake wrote:

Thanks Evan. We've talked about this enough so I'm aware of your general stance, which I broadly share. But what would be particularly helpful to know is whether AL has any specific responses to specific elements of the proposed principles, including suggestions of language tweaks. If not ok, but thought I'd ask…

Best

Bill

On Jan 17, 2012, at 10:17 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:

...

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 _______________________________________________ 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

Hi On Jan 17, 2012, at 11:55 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:

thanks for your kind note. This is the first I hear of this. I'll check with the ExCom re: a response. I am particularly surprised that the GNSO Council would engage in a unilateral decision such as this when the functioning of CWGs affects both the GNSO but also the other SOs and ACs taking part in CWGs.

That said, I note that the Motion mentions asking SO and AC Chairs to provide input in 60 days so I gather that this process will extend to outside the confines of the GNSO Council should the motion be passed.

Right, of course any principles the Council adopts are just a statement of its position going into possible negotiation of a "related set of principles" for community-wide adoption, and other SO/ACs will have ample opportunities to formulate responses and work it out with the Council. So certainly there is no issue here of unilaterally imposing its model on anyone else. Nevertheless, it is useful for the wider community to know where the Council is heading on this, and for the Council to be aware of any concerns others might have before locking in on its preferred model. Hence the request for any inputs that Alan and if needed I can pass along at this stage. Just to respond quickly to a few points: On Jan 17, 2012, at 10:38 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote:

Suggested draft principle could be as follows:-

In recognition of At Large's role in highlighting global end users interest nothing shall take away the rights nor restrict in any way shape or form At Large's capacity to constantly engage in raising the rights and interests of end users. Whilst I note that (2)(c)(iii) covers it somewhat but it appears a trifle inadequate.

I understand the concern, but suspect underscoring ALAC's mandate in a Council text would be a hard sell, especially since the latter doesn't affect the former. On Jan 18, 2012, at 1:03 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:

On 17 January 2012 17:35, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:

The point that will no doubt be a lightening rod following the JAS group is

...

the stipulation that when formed, a CCWG should have a single charter. Although in the far reaches of my imagination I can come up with reasons that this should not be a rule, but I not at all sure that such edge cases need to be dealt with here.

I don't see the stretch. Soon to come will be RAA discussions in which the issue of "rights", for end users and/or registrants will come out. In previous GNSO meetings I have been told these issues have been out of scope and are of no interest to them. If there is future cross-community work on this issue I will not want to constrain the ALAC's ability to advocate for end-user issues because it's out of the GNSO's scope. It may mean there are components of the combined work in which the GNSO may have no interest, but the lack of shared interest in (what some would see as) a side issue should not present the larger issues from being discussed jointly.

On Jan 18, 2012, at 4:51 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote:

If we (At-Large) want to work on something that is counter to the interests (or self-interest) of part or all of the GNSO, then is is not a really good CCWG.

Here I agree with Evan, which is why I, Avri and I think other NCUCers raised this in Council. If the chartering groups' concerns completely align and make a single charter possible, great. Conversely, if they are fundamentally incompatible, a CCWG is unlikely to be productive. But in between these poles there's a lot of space, so one would hope some differences of emphasis don't by default mean that each should just retreats into its silo to do its own thing. To me, a CCWG is in the first instance a platform for interspecies dialogue on issues requiring drill down reflection and recommendations—joint ones if possible, but if not, ok. Consider the issue-set in a holistic manner, and if one group preferences issues a, c and e while the other preferences b, d and f, and/or comes to different conclusions/recs on the same points, fine. Why shouldn't the chartering (and as needed, rechartering) process allow for some variability as long as the groups are engaging in a coherent dialogue on matters of common concern? Nor should the internal dynamics of one group hold back the progress of another in tackling the matters it cares about. As the JAS experience ultimately demonstrated after the rechartering, a bit of variability can allow for innovation and help move things along (although obviously it can also lead to contestation, which ought to be manageable through better communication and coordination). A priori I'd think it preferable for the principles to call for a single joint charter "where possible" or some such weasel formulation in order to give SO/ACs more latitude in working out the model to be followed in each case, and perhaps to offer some general guidelines for how things should be conducted absent one. But I suspect a motion amendment to that effect would go down in flames. In any event, however NCSG votes, hopefully a mutually satisfactory community-wide solution can be worked out later (if in fact one thinks a fixed framework is needed). Thanks for the input, Best Bill

On 17 January 2012 17:35, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote: Several of the points are very GNSO-centric (and perhaps ccNSO) in that

they repeatedly stipulate that formal "policy" must be carried out under the rules set out in the ICANN Bylaws for such policy development.

As we have seen in the gTLD rollout, the GNSO has repeatedly shown its own willingness to overstep its bounds and deal in processes rather than policy (ie, objection processes). If the GNSO wants to be anal about how policy can be done, we also have the obligation to point out that GNSO has less bylaw-based authority to comment on non-policy implementation matters than ALAC does. The point that will no doubt be a lightening rod following the JAS group is

the stipulation that when formed, a CCWG should have a single charter. Although in the far reaches of my imagination I can come up with reasons that this should not be a rule, but I not at all sure that such edge cases need to be dealt with here.

I don't see the stretch. Soon to come will be RAA discussions in which the issue of "rights", for end users and/or registrants will come out. In previous GNSO meetings I have been told these issues have been out of scope and are of no interest to them. If there is future cross-community work on this issue I will not want to constrain the ALAC's ability to advocate for end-user issues because it's out of the GNSO's scope. It may mean there are components of the combined work in which the GNSO may have no interest, but the lack of shared interest in (what some would see as) a side issue should not present the larger issues from being discussed jointly. There should be many, many opportunities to do cross-community work. If it is to be constrained to always be the lowest common denominator of only that which is of interest to all, not much of this will happen.

I do not believe that we have ever participated in a CCWG that had multiple disagreeing charters at the beginning.

Alan, we have not participated in that many CCWGs, period. The concept is still in its infancy and I see these regs as the wedge of an attempt to thwart this concept before it becomes too dangerous to established power. In fact, those who were around may recall that for the JAS group, we did

agree on a single charter. Due to a clerical (honestly!) error, one clause was omitted from the version that the GNSO approved. When the charter came up to the ALAC, the ALAC decided to drop that clause as well, as it wasfelt that it was not sufficiently important to warrant delaying the entire process until it could go back to the GNSO for re-chartering (and we believed that the group WOULD look at that issue regardless of whether it as in the charter). Other CCWGs such as DSSA all had a single charter agreed to by one mechanism or another ahead of time.

This worked, and is an argument in favour of a status quo of flexibility. You will notice that the principles are silent on the issue of

re-chartering part-way through a process, the situation where JAS blew up.

If the proposed principles demand a single charter, then a post-creation divergence in charter would demand disbanding of the WG. This is IMO unacceptable.

If you recall the sequence of events there:

I recall that ALAC did all the accommodation in an unsuccessful attempt to find a middle ground.

- that was perhaps a bit awkward to work with, but the JAS WG was willing and things proceeded to the eventual VERY successful outcome, with the GNSO supporting all end-products equally, even the ones that they had not included in their charter.

Evidence, please? The GNSO motion on the JAS final report did not endorse it at all, but simply acknowledged it and forwarded it to the Board. That hardly constituted "support", and obviously feel short of a GNSO request that the Board approve the JAS core component requests (such as fee reductions unconstrained by a fixed fund).

Another area that may attract discussion is about the rules that a CCWG will follow.

Why does this need to be set in stone? Different problems call for different solutions, and constraining the process before it starts is worse than counter-productive. - Evan

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

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

Thanks Bill, and thanks for reminding us of the wording of the motion. It is indeed a starting position and there will be plenty of time to discuss it across ICANN. Great job in suggesting F2F. Warmest regards, Olivier On 20/01/2012 14:56, William Drake wrote :

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

---

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

-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html