Thanks Marie.  Agree with your observations, but I think my question was even more basic:

 

The question I have about the language

“Acknowledging participation to similar efforts outside of the ICANN Community”

 

Is whether it means

1. Acknowledging in connection with similar efforts outside the ICANN community the work that is being done (or has been done) inside the ICANN community  OR
2. Acknowledging within Council the work the Councilor is doing with similar efforts outside the ICANN community.

 

This may just be a simple question to whoever drafted this language but the intent is not clear to me.  I think  Sebastien commented that this is about transparency.  So now I’m wondering which way the “acknowledgment” obligation runs.  (Again, I don’t have anything to “acknowledge” either way but am simply interested in the obligation being clearly stated.)

 

The points you raise could also impact the commitment not to “relitigate” matters within the ICANN Community.  For example, could comments on the SSAD – stating that it is too expensive and wouldn’t be used by the intended user be interpreted as “relitigating” EPDP Consensus?  What if a particular SO or AC voted “no” on a recommendation and intends to provide direct advice to the Board on that point?  Does the obligation not to “relitigate”  mean that a Councilor cannot support his or her SO or AC in its direct advice to the Board because that would amount to “relitigating” the issue?

 

Thanks all,

Anne

 

 

 

 

Hi all,

Looking forward to talking to the small team soon. I’ve just been reading through the document again and I see Anne’s/Paul’s point – my role as a BC councillor is to represent the BC in the GNSO; it doesn’t preclude me from advocating on behalf of my (day job) members in any other fora, and of course neither could it. In other words, our role as councillors doesn’t supersede our role as employees! If there is an agreement in Council with which either the BC or my day-job employer disagree, I will of course tell both of them what happened in Council and explain the reasoning, but that absolutely doesn’t “tie my hands” as it were in pursuing the interests/instructions of my (day job) members. I think this may be open to misinterpretation/ over-reach.

Thanks,

Marie

 

 

Hi Paul,

Hi Anne, thank you for your question and welcome to the GNSO,

 

The idea is not to preclude anyone from doing anything, but to promote disclosure for transparency’s sake.

In your example, as ICANN does not concern itself with content censorship (bar the agreed types of DNS Abuse), work on the topic in other forums should have no impact on ICANN’s work. I would not warrant any sort of disclosure.

On the contrary on a topic that is more core to ICANN, like the processing of personal data, I would want to encourage that transparency. This is not to say that one can’t be in disagreement with the consensus and voice it in the community or outside, as long as it is done acknowledging and respecting the existing consensus; but I think that should one actively pursuing competing policy efforts elsewhere, it should be acknowledged.

 

This said, I do understand that acting as counsel, one is not always either representing the same interest or able to disclose who they represent, and I respect it – I believe separate work on the SOI is attempting to clarify this aspect.

 

I hope this helps,

Kindly