I agree with Mike here. Sometimes it is quite difficult to find a chair at all. I wouldn't want to exclude someone just because they served on a drafting team. If there is a perceived bias or breach of neutrality, that person wouldn't be elected chair in the first place, or should be removed as chair if and when that situation should arise. Thanks. Jon Jonathon Nevett President, Domain Dimensions, LLC +1-301-881-8554 jon@nevett.net On Mar 18, 2010, at 4:57 PM, Mike Rodenbaugh wrote:
I just do not understand why participation on a Drafting Team indicates potential bias as Chair. People on DTs will be interested in the topic, which ought to be desired of the Chair as well. As you know we often have too few volunteers, even without imposing arbitrary restrictions like this.
Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1 (415) 738-8087 http://rodenbaugh.com
-----Original Message----- From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Berry Cobb Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2010 1:37 PM To: 'bc - GNSO list' Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] BC position -- comments on Working Group Guidelines v3
To counter the disagreement wrt item #1, the concern here is to prevent a breach in neutrality. I will not waste time with details, but a recent example does exist where neutrality was compromised. I can sign on for the removal of this sentence from our Position Statement, due in part that we do have limited resources given the demand. With this removal, how can we further promote and ensure neutrality of the WG chair?
Thank you.
Berry A. Cobb Infinity Portals LLC 866.921.8891
-----Original Message----- From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2010 11:59 To: 'bc - GNSO list' Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] BC position -- comments on Working Group Guidelines v3
Thanks Mikey, Berry and others for the work on these important Guidelines.
I am generally in support of the BC statement you have drafted, with the following disagreements:
1. I disagree with the addition of this sentence re WG Chairs: "To further promote neutrality, a person should avoid standing for Chair if they participated on the Drafting Team that created the Charter of the Working Group." I think generally it ought to be beneficial for the Chair to have been involved in the Drafting Team, and see no reason to exclude them in all cases. Thus we should remove this sentence.
2. I disagree with the suggested additional language re neutrality of Liasons. The Liason's role is simply to communicate between WG and CO, neutrality is not needed other than wrt those communications. The Liason should otherwise be able to participate fully. It will be exceedingly difficult if not impossible to find disinterested Liasons -- who would volunteer for such a role if they are not interested?! Thus we should remove this recommendation.
3. I disagree with the suggested language re 'consistent participation'. We must recognize that many people will not have time for WG calls, for example, and will choose to participate via the email list and otherwise in writing. This is particularly important not only for those with jobs unrelated to ICANN, but also for those who do not speak English as a first language and for those whose timezone may not be friendly to the WG schedule. Thus our comments should be clear that no meaningful WG decisions should ever be accomplished without ability for input from the mail list, and specifically should never be taken on the basis of participation on any one or few WG calls. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1 (415) 738-8087 http://rodenbaugh.com
-----Original Message----- From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2010 2:39 AM To: bc - GNSO list Subject: [bc-gnso] BC position -- comments on Working Group Guidelines v3
hello all,
sorry to send this right at the beginning of the ICANN meetings, but timing is tough and i need to send it now in order to be able to submit it on time.
thanks to all who contributed to this revised version of the draft position -- especially Berry!
please review this between now and March 20th so that we/i can submit these by the March 22nd deadline.
mikey