RE: [council] FW: Action item on me from our teleconf yesterday regarding the recent Board Resolutions from Trondheim, reflecting on reports from various WG's including JAS and Rec6 CWG...
Well Bill, if that was all it was about that might be true. But the second sentence of the first paragraph of the excerpt clearly indicates a bigger picture goal. So perhaps how we proceed all depends on how we do it and what it involves. Getting more info on the Board's decisions is one thing, extending it beyond that is another. Tim
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [council] FW: Action item on me from our teleconf yesterday regarding the recent Board Resolutions from Trondheim, reflecting on reports from various WG's including JAS and Rec6 CWG... From: William Drake <william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch> Date: Wed, October 06, 2010 3:53 am To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> Cc: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@godaddy.com>, <council@gnso.icann.org>
Hello,
The verbiage presents some challenges, but I don't believe the intent or effect of CLO's message is to diminish the GNSO's role. The main point is she's expressing concerns shared by many about the transparency and accountability of the board's deliberations and decision making, and is asking for information that might help clarify the thinking behind the resolutions. This is a generalizable point, irrespective of what one thinks about the JAS and Rec6CWG efforts in particular, cross-community groups in general, etc. Why wouldn't the Council and the SGs it represents want to know more about what materials were considered and how decisions were reached on matters to which people devoted a lot of time and energy in our bottom up democratic process?
This would seem to merit some discussion tomorrow, no?
Best,
Bill
On Sep 30, 2010, at 10:12 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote: What do you think is being replaced Tim? What responsibility do you think would be shirked? Chuck From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@godaddy.com] Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2010 1:12 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] FW: Action item on me from our teleconf yesterday regarding the recent Board Resolutions from Trondheim, reflecting on reports from various WG's including JAS and Rec6 CWG...
This just further entrenches my concerns that that we have set off an effort to diminsh the GNSO's role within ICANN policy making (and/or increase that of the ACs beyond what was envisioned in privatizing this medium). So I do not support Cheryl's suggestion given that she clearly includes that as part of the goal for calling this effort together.
We should be very concerned and cautious about shirking our responsibility as managers of policy development for the generic name space by allowing so-called "community working groups" or "cross community" initiatives to replace GNSO policy processes.
Tim
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: [council] FW: Action item on me from our teleconf yesterday regarding the recent Board Resolutions from Trondheim, reflecting on reports from various WG's including JAS and Rec6 CWG... From: "Gomes, Chuck" Date: Thu, September 30, 2010 8:07 am To: "Council GNSO" Please note the following email from Cheryl Langdon-Orr, ALAC Chair, that was sent to me along with Heather Dryden and Frank March of the GAC. Noting that the references to the GNSO Council meeting should be corrected to 7 October (not 8 October as stated in Cheryl�s message), under agenda �Item 7: New gTLD Board Resolutions from Board Retreat� I would like to request direction from the GNSO Council regarding how I should respond. In particular, please note the following excerpts from Cheryl�s message: �My proposal to GNSO and GAC is that with the knowledge of how our AC is planning to proceed and brief outline on some of the matters we wish to address, would GNSO and/or GAC like to collaborate and proceed in these inquiries and analysis as a joint activity? It is our belief that particularly where we were jointly operating as Chartering Organisations or in Cross Community mode this would be quite advantageous and if GNSO and/or GAC do wish to do so the ALAC and I look forward to the opportunity to continue to build better and more robust models for multi-stakeholderism and bottom up consensus built policy processes in ICANN.� �. . . ALAC will be writing to the Board and Senior staff involved, to requesting some information and materials that we trust will help us (as well as the WG participants and wider ICANN Community) the rational to the resolutions of the Board regarding the Reports provided, as well as some information as to depth and time taken in deliberation of the recommendations from the community (specifically the Consensus ones, but also those with Strong Support) by the Board and for any information and/or explanation we can be given to assist our understanding in the decisions outlined in those resolutions, we will also be requesting access to and prompt delivery of the Board briefing materials and staff briefings on these substantial reports, (the Board Books) under the previously announced intentions and guidelines for these publications, (since Brussels) noting that at this stage the community has not had access to the Aug meetings materials and if a similar delay was seen with this retreat / meeting we would still be requesting information, explanation and assistance towards our understanding as we go into the Catagena meeting. We have also been requested to write to the ATRT with these concerns and with copy of the requests we make.� Please forward this request to your respective SGs and constituencies as soon as possible and be prepared to discuss this on 7 October. Thanks, Chuck From: Cheryl Langdon-Orr [mailto:langdonorr@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2010 3:15 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; Heather.Dryden@ic.gc.ca; Frank March Cc: alac-excom@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Action item on me from our teleconf yesterday regarding the recent Board Resolutions from Trondheim, reflecting on reports from various WG's including JAS and Rec6 CWG... As discussed in our brief chat yesterday, the ALAC at its meeting on the 28th discussed several matters and concerns to our community and the At-Large participants in several of the recent WG activities (particularly the WG focussed on VI, JAS and Rec6CWG) arising out of the resolutions published recently from the Board Retreat at Trondheim, Norway see http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-25sep10-en.htm The ALAC meeting was joined by Regional (RALO) leadership, At-Large Liaisons to ICANN SO's and other AC's and participants to the aforementioned WG's which as you know range from the 'traditional SO / GNSO Chartered WG (VI) through the Joint Chartering Organisation of JAS-WG between GNSO and ALAC to the tripartite or multi SOAC Cross Community WG for Rec6 that was jointly managed under Terms of Reference from GNSO, GAC and ALAC; the ALAC had formally appointed a Liaison from us as a joint CO to both the JAS and Rec6CWG (operating under role definitions and mechanisms from the current near final draft GNSO WG guidelines Section 2.2 page 11 of GNSO Working Group Guidelines - clean - updated 20 May 2010.doc ) and both these Liaisons addressed serious concerns raised by their respective WG's since the Board resolutions have been published and the ALAC agreed that "Cheryl and ExCom to follow up on possibility of executive of two chartering organizations (GNSO and ALAC) speaking to Chuck about concerns re Board's reaction to JAS WG. Similar concerns regarding the response to the report from the Rec6CWG, will be raised by Cheryl in a teleconference between the CO's and Co-Chairs of that WG and again follow through on this will be actioned either by the ALAC or in any joint reaction from GNSO, GAC and ALAC that might occur (this will be followed though on either jointly with other issues or separately)." from AI's from ALAC meeting of 28 Sept. https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?action_items_28_september_2010_en I am writing to you with this information and the following proposal so that the GAC and GNSO can consider what next steps they might wish to take jointly or severally with that which the ALAC intends to do. As I also mentioned in our call the GNSO Liaison to the Joint JAS-WG is expected to bring this matter forward at the GNSO meeting of the 8th of October and knowledge of ALAC deliberations and AI's on this matter may be of some interest or use to the GNSO Councils deliberations on this JAS specific matter as well as whatever might be raised regarding Rec6CWG. On behalf of the At-Large Community involved and/or interested in these WG activities conducted since Nairobi and deadlined to feed into the Board Retreat where they were considering the new gTLD program Application Guidelines etc., ALAC will be writing to the Board and Senior staff involved, to requesting some information and materials that we trust will help us (as well as the WG participants and wider ICANN Community) the rational to the resolutions of the Board regarding the Reports provided, as well as some information as to depth and time taken in deliberation of the recommendations from the community (specifically the Consensus ones, but also those with Strong Support) by the Board and for any information and/or explanation we can be given to assist our understanding in the decisions outlined in those resolutions, we will also be requesting access to and prompt delivery of the Board briefing materials and staff briefings on these substantial reports, (the Board Books) under the previously announced intentions and guidelines for these publications, (since Brussels) noting that at this stage the community has not had access to the Aug meetings materials and if a similar delay was seen with this retreat / meeting we would still be requesting information, explanation and assistance towards our understanding as we go into the Catagena meeting. We have also been requested to write to the ATRT with these concerns and with copy of the requests we make. There is concern in our community that the briefings and staff advice given to the Board may not have done justice to the degree of information and the specifics of the various recommendations in these reports, nor that sufficient time or debate was allocated to them and we will be seeking assurances and information to disprove or otherwise these fears. My proposal to GNSO and GAC is that with the knowledge of how our AC is planning to proceed and brief outline on some of the matters we wish to address, would GNSO and/or GAC like to collaborate and proceed in these inquiries and analysis as a joint activity? It is our belief that particularly where we were jointly operating as Chartering Organisations or in Cross Community mode this would be quite advantageous and if GNSO and/or GAC do wish to do so the ALAC and I look forward to the opportunity to continue to build better and more robust models for multi-stakeholderism and bottom up consensus built policy processes in ICANN. Chuck I trust this missive is timely enough for it to be of some use to the GNSO Council meeting on the 8th and Heather recognizing that the GAC does not have an intersession model that matches the frequency of ALAC and GNSO Council meeting do let me know if there is anything I can do to assist any discussion and deliberations your AC is making on these matters and note also that as ALAC works with all of At-Large and at-large, we would value any individual or partial/subset interactions and interventions from your Members and Constituencies, if you as SO and AC are unable to join us in cross community collaboration on this... I look forward to your Council and AC reactions to this proposals and towards ALAC and A-Large working with you in any way deemed most suitable and effective on this issue in the near future. Please note that by our mid month ExCom meeting (held in the week of Oct 11 TBC) where we next review our AI's I would like to have your feedback, guidance and suggestions on how you wish to proceed. Naturally as leadership and key representation in the ICANN Community we can I believe work more effectively and successfully in concert and collaboration rather than by divided effort on this and many other matters, and I hope your structures might see it that was as well. Kindest regards, Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) Chair of ALAC 2007- 2010
*********************************************************** William J. Drake Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html www.linkedin.com/in/williamjdrake ***********************************************************
Hi Tim On Oct 6, 2010, at 5:18 PM, Tim Ruiz wrote:
Well Bill, if that was all it was about that might be true. But the second sentence of the first paragraph of the excerpt clearly indicates a bigger picture goal.
You mean, "particularly where we were jointly operating as Chartering Organisations or in Cross Community mode"? I don't read this as implying that henceforth the Council's role should be diminished and everything should be done in cross community mode, but rather that in those (hardly abundant) cases where we do do something cross community, SO/AC's should be able to get the information needed to understand the decisions taken on their work. That seems a fair point to me, and one would think it's generalizably applicable, including to efforts that were not cross-community.
So perhaps how we proceed all depends on how we do it and what it involves. Getting more info on the Board's decisions is one thing, extending it beyond that is another.
Right, separate issues, and we can make it very clear if need be that agreeing with ALAC on the need for transparency doesn't imply we envision diminishing the GNSO's role or a default obligation to do everything on a cross-community basis. Would you be ok with that? Best, Bill
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [council] FW: Action item on me from our teleconf yesterday regarding the recent Board Resolutions from Trondheim, reflecting on reports from various WG's including JAS and Rec6 CWG... From: William Drake Date: Wed, October 06, 2010 3:53 am To: "Gomes, Chuck" Cc: "Tim Ruiz" ,
Hello,
The verbiage presents some challenges, but I don't believe the intent or effect of CLO's message is to diminish the GNSO's role. The main point is she's expressing concerns shared by many about the transparency and accountability of the board's deliberations and decision making, and is asking for information that might help clarify the thinking behind the resolutions. This is a generalizable point, irrespective of what one thinks about the JAS and Rec6CWG efforts in particular, cross-community groups in general, etc. Why wouldn't the Council and the SGs it represents want to know more about what materials were considered and how decisions were reached on matters to which people devoted a lot of time and energy in our bottom up democratic process?
This would seem to merit some discussion tomorrow, no?
Best,
Bill
On Sep 30, 2010, at 10:12 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote: What do you think is being replaced Tim? What responsibility do you think would be shirked?
Chuck
From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@godaddy.com] Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2010 1:12 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] FW: Action item on me from our teleconf yesterday regarding the recent Board Resolutions from Trondheim, reflecting on reports from various WG's including JAS and Rec6 CWG...
This just further entrenches my concerns that that we have set off an effort to diminsh the GNSO's role within ICANN policy making (and/or increase that of the ACs beyond what was envisioned in privatizing this medium). So I do not support Cheryl's suggestion given that she clearly includes that as part of the goal for calling this effort together.
We should be very concerned and cautious about shirking our responsibility as managers of policy development for the generic name space by allowing so-called "community working groups" or "cross community" initiatives to replace GNSO policy processes.
Tim
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: [council] FW: Action item on me from our teleconf yesterday regarding the recent Board Resolutions from Trondheim, reflecting on reports from various WG's including JAS and Rec6 CWG... From: "Gomes, Chuck" Date: Thu, September 30, 2010 8:07 am To: "Council GNSO"
Please note the following email from Cheryl Langdon-Orr, ALAC Chair, that was sent to me along with Heather Dryden and Frank March of the GAC. Noting that the references to the GNSO Council meeting should be corrected to 7 October (not 8 October as stated in Cheryl�s message), under agenda �Item 7: New gTLD Board Resolutions from Board Retreat� I would like to request direction from the GNSO Council regarding how I should respond. In particular, please note the following excerpts from Cheryl�s message:
�My proposal to GNSO and GAC is that with the knowledge of how our AC is planning to proceed and brief outline on some of the matters we wish to address, would GNSO and/or GAC like to collaborate and proceed in these inquiries and analysis as a joint activity? It is our belief that particularly where we were jointly operating as Chartering Organisations or in Cross Community mode this would be quite advantageous and if GNSO and/or GAC do wish to do so the ALAC and I look forward to the opportunity to continue to build better and more robust models for multi-stakeholderism and bottom up consensus built policy processes in ICANN.�
�. . . ALAC will be writing to the Board and Senior staff involved, to requesting some information and materials that we trust will help us (as well as the WG participants and wider ICANN Community) the rational to the resolutions of the Board regarding the Reports provided, as well as some information as to depth and time taken in deliberation of the recommendations from the community (specifically the Consensus ones, but also those with Strong Support) by the Board and for any information and/or explanation we can be given to assist our understanding in the decisions outlined in those resolutions, we will also be requesting access to and prompt delivery of the Board briefing materials and staff briefings on these substantial reports, (the Board Books) under the previously announced intentions and guidelines for these publications, (since Brussels) noting that at this stage the community has not had access to the Aug meetings materials and if a similar delay was seen with this retreat / meeting we would still be requesting information, explanation and assistance towards our understanding as we go into the Catagena meeting. We have also been requested to write to the ATRT with these concerns and with copy of the requests we make.�
Please forward this request to your respective SGs and constituencies as soon as possible and be prepared to discuss this on 7 October.
Thanks, Chuck
From: Cheryl Langdon-Orr [mailto:langdonorr@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2010 3:15 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; Heather.Dryden@ic.gc.ca; Frank March Cc: alac-excom@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Action item on me from our teleconf yesterday regarding the recent Board Resolutions from Trondheim, reflecting on reports from various WG's including JAS and Rec6 CWG...
As discussed in our brief chat yesterday, the ALAC at its meeting on the 28th discussed several matters and concerns to our community and the At-Large participants in several of the recent WG activities (particularly the WG focussed on VI, JAS and Rec6CWG) arising out of the resolutions published recently from the Board Retreat at Trondheim, Norway see http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-25sep10-en.htm
The ALAC meeting was joined by Regional (RALO) leadership, At-Large Liaisons to ICANN SO's and other AC's and participants to the aforementioned WG's which as you know range from the 'traditional SO / GNSO Chartered WG (VI) through the Joint Chartering Organisation of JAS-WG between GNSO and ALAC to the tripartite or multi SOAC Cross Community WG for Rec6 that was jointly managed under Terms of Reference from GNSO, GAC and ALAC; the ALAC had formally appointed a Liaison from us as a joint CO to both the JAS and Rec6CWG (operating under role definitions and mechanisms from the current near final draft GNSO WG guidelines Section 2.2 page 11 of GNSO Working Group Guidelines - clean - updated 20 May 2010.doc ) and both these Liaisons addressed serious concerns raised by their respective WG's since the Board resolutions have been published and the ALAC agreed that "Cheryl and ExCom to follow up on possibility of executive of two chartering organizations (GNSO and ALAC) speaking to Chuck about concerns re Board's reaction to JAS WG. Similar concerns regarding the response to the report from the Rec6CWG, will be raised by Cheryl in a teleconference between the CO's and Co-Chairs of that WG and again follow through on this will be actioned either by the ALAC or in any joint reaction from GNSO, GAC and ALAC that might occur (this will be followed though on either jointly with other issues or separately)." from AI's from ALAC meeting of 28 Sept. https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?action_items_28_september_2010_en
I am writing to you with this information and the following proposal so that the GAC and GNSO can consider what next steps they might wish to take jointly or severally with that which the ALAC intends to do. As I also mentioned in our call the GNSO Liaison to the Joint JAS-WG is expected to bring this matter forward at the GNSO meeting of the 8th of October and knowledge of ALAC deliberations and AI's on this matter may be of some interest or use to the GNSO Councils deliberations on this JAS specific matter as well as whatever might be raised regarding Rec6CWG.
On behalf of the At-Large Community involved and/or interested in these WG activities conducted since Nairobi and deadlined to feed into the Board Retreat where they were considering the new gTLD program Application Guidelines etc., ALAC will be writing to the Board and Senior staff involved, to requesting some information and materials that we trust will help us (as well as the WG participants and wider ICANN Community) the rational to the resolutions of the Board regarding the Reports provided, as well as some information as to depth and time taken in deliberation of the recommendations from the community (specifically the Consensus ones, but also those with Strong Support) by the Board and for any information and/or explanation we can be given to assist our understanding in the decisions outlined in those resolutions, we will also be requesting access to and prompt delivery of the Board briefing materials and staff briefings on these substantial reports, (the Board Books) under the previously announced intentions and guidelines for these publications, (since Brussels) noting that at this stage the community has not had access to the Aug meetings materials and if a similar delay was seen with this retreat / meeting we would still be requesting information, explanation and assistance towards our understanding as we go into the Catagena meeting. We have also been requested to write to the ATRT with these concerns and with copy of the requests we make.
There is concern in our community that the briefings and staff advice given to the Board may not have done justice to the degree of information and the specifics of the various recommendations in these reports, nor that sufficient time or debate was allocated to them and we will be seeking assurances and information to disprove or otherwise these fears.
My proposal to GNSO and GAC is that with the knowledge of how our AC is planning to proceed and brief outline on some of the matters we wish to address, would GNSO and/or GAC like to collaborate and proceed in these inquiries and analysis as a joint activity? It is our belief that particularly where we were jointly operating as Chartering Organisations or in Cross Community mode this would be quite advantageous and if GNSO and/or GAC do wish to do so the ALAC and I look forward to the opportunity to continue to build better and more robust models for multi-stakeholderism and bottom up consensus built policy processes in ICANN.
Chuck I trust this missive is timely enough for it to be of some use to the GNSO Council meeting on the 8th and Heather recognizing that the GAC does not have an intersession model that matches the frequency of ALAC and GNSO Council meeting do let me know if there is anything I can do to assist any discussion and deliberations your AC is making on these matters and note also that as ALAC works with all of At-Large and at-large, we would value any individual or partial/subset interactions and interventions from your Members and Constituencies, if you as SO and AC are unable to join us in cross community collaboration on this...
I look forward to your Council and AC reactions to this proposals and towards ALAC and A-Large working with you in any way deemed most suitable and effective on this issue in the near future. Please note that by our mid month ExCom meeting (held in the week of Oct 11 TBC) where we next review our AI's I would like to have your feedback, guidance and suggestions on how you wish to proceed. Naturally as leadership and key representation in the ICANN Community we can I believe work more effectively and successfully in concert and collaboration rather than by divided effort on this and many other matters, and I hope your structures might see it that was as well.
Kindest regards,
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO)
Chair of ALAC 2007- 2010
*********************************************************** William J. Drake Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html www.linkedin.com/in/williamjdrake ***********************************************************
*********************************************************** William J. Drake Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html www.linkedin.com/in/williamjdrake ***********************************************************
Perhaps. But we just commumicated a CWG message to Board and now we are considering another one. I would like to consider that it may be better to inquire as indv. SOs and ACs this time - multiple similar requests versus a single joint one. Tim -----Original Message----- From: William Drake <william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch> Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2010 18:15:21 To: Tim Ruiz<tim@godaddy.com> Cc: <council@gnso.icann.org>; <cgomes@verisign.com> Subject: Re: [council] FW: Action item on me from our teleconf yesterday regarding the recent Board Resolutions from Trondheim, reflecting on reports from various WG's including JAS and Rec6 CWG... Hi Tim On Oct 6, 2010, at 5:18 PM, Tim Ruiz wrote:
Well Bill, if that was all it was about that might be true. But the second sentence of the first paragraph of the excerpt clearly indicates a bigger picture goal.
You mean, "particularly where we were jointly operating as Chartering Organisations or in Cross Community mode"? I don't read this as implying that henceforth the Council's role should be diminished and everything should be done in cross community mode, but rather that in those (hardly abundant) cases where we do do something cross community, SO/AC's should be able to get the information needed to understand the decisions taken on their work. That seems a fair point to me, and one would think it's generalizably applicable, including to efforts that were not cross-community.
So perhaps how we proceed all depends on how we do it and what it involves. Getting more info on the Board's decisions is one thing, extending it beyond that is another.
Right, separate issues, and we can make it very clear if need be that agreeing with ALAC on the need for transparency doesn't imply we envision diminishing the GNSO's role or a default obligation to do everything on a cross-community basis. Would you be ok with that? Best, Bill
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [council] FW: Action item on me from our teleconf yesterday regarding the recent Board Resolutions from Trondheim, reflecting on reports from various WG's including JAS and Rec6 CWG... From: William Drake Date: Wed, October 06, 2010 3:53 am To: "Gomes, Chuck" Cc: "Tim Ruiz" ,
Hello,
The verbiage presents some challenges, but I don't believe the intent or effect of CLO's message is to diminish the GNSO's role. The main point is she's expressing concerns shared by many about the transparency and accountability of the board's deliberations and decision making, and is asking for information that might help clarify the thinking behind the resolutions. This is a generalizable point, irrespective of what one thinks about the JAS and Rec6CWG efforts in particular, cross-community groups in general, etc. Why wouldn't the Council and the SGs it represents want to know more about what materials were considered and how decisions were reached on matters to which people devoted a lot of time and energy in our bottom up democratic process?
This would seem to merit some discussion tomorrow, no?
Best,
Bill
On Sep 30, 2010, at 10:12 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote: What do you think is being replaced Tim? What responsibility do you think would be shirked?
Chuck
From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@godaddy.com] Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2010 1:12 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] FW: Action item on me from our teleconf yesterday regarding the recent Board Resolutions from Trondheim, reflecting on reports from various WG's including JAS and Rec6 CWG...
This just further entrenches my concerns that that we have set off an effort to diminsh the GNSO's role within ICANN policy making (and/or increase that of the ACs beyond what was envisioned in privatizing this medium). So I do not support Cheryl's suggestion given that she clearly includes that as part of the goal for calling this effort together.
We should be very concerned and cautious about shirking our responsibility as managers of policy development for the generic name space by allowing so-called "community working groups" or "cross community" initiatives to replace GNSO policy processes.
Tim
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: [council] FW: Action item on me from our teleconf yesterday regarding the recent Board Resolutions from Trondheim, reflecting on reports from various WG's including JAS and Rec6 CWG... From: "Gomes, Chuck" Date: Thu, September 30, 2010 8:07 am To: "Council GNSO"
Please note the following email from Cheryl Langdon-Orr, ALAC Chair, that was sent to me along with Heather Dryden and Frank March of the GAC. Noting that the references to the GNSO Council meeting should be corrected to 7 October (not 8 October as stated in Cheryl�s message), under agenda �Item 7: New gTLD Board Resolutions from Board Retreat� I would like to request direction from the GNSO Council regarding how I should respond. In particular, please note the following excerpts from Cheryl�s message:
�My proposal to GNSO and GAC is that with the knowledge of how our AC is planning to proceed and brief outline on some of the matters we wish to address, would GNSO and/or GAC like to collaborate and proceed in these inquiries and analysis as a joint activity? It is our belief that particularly where we were jointly operating as Chartering Organisations or in Cross Community mode this would be quite advantageous and if GNSO and/or GAC do wish to do so the ALAC and I look forward to the opportunity to continue to build better and more robust models for multi-stakeholderism and bottom up consensus built policy processes in ICANN.�
�. . . ALAC will be writing to the Board and Senior staff involved, to requesting some information and materials that we trust will help us (as well as the WG participants and wider ICANN Community) the rational to the resolutions of the Board regarding the Reports provided, as well as some information as to depth and time taken in deliberation of the recommendations from the community (specifically the Consensus ones, but also those with Strong Support) by the Board and for any information and/or explanation we can be given to assist our understanding in the decisions outlined in those resolutions, we will also be requesting access to and prompt delivery of the Board briefing materials and staff briefings on these substantial reports, (the Board Books) under the previously announced intentions and guidelines for these publications, (since Brussels) noting that at this stage the community has not had access to the Aug meetings materials and if a similar delay was seen with this retreat / meeting we would still be requesting information, explanation and assistance towards our understanding as we go into the Catagena meeting. We have also been requested to write to the ATRT with these concerns and with copy of the requests we make.�
Please forward this request to your respective SGs and constituencies as soon as possible and be prepared to discuss this on 7 October.
Thanks, Chuck
From: Cheryl Langdon-Orr [mailto:langdonorr@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2010 3:15 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; Heather.Dryden@ic.gc.ca; Frank March Cc: alac-excom@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Action item on me from our teleconf yesterday regarding the recent Board Resolutions from Trondheim, reflecting on reports from various WG's including JAS and Rec6 CWG...
As discussed in our brief chat yesterday, the ALAC at its meeting on the 28th discussed several matters and concerns to our community and the At-Large participants in several of the recent WG activities (particularly the WG focussed on VI, JAS and Rec6CWG) arising out of the resolutions published recently from the Board Retreat at Trondheim, Norway see http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-25sep10-en.htm
The ALAC meeting was joined by Regional (RALO) leadership, At-Large Liaisons to ICANN SO's and other AC's and participants to the aforementioned WG's which as you know range from the 'traditional SO / GNSO Chartered WG (VI) through the Joint Chartering Organisation of JAS-WG between GNSO and ALAC to the tripartite or multi SOAC Cross Community WG for Rec6 that was jointly managed under Terms of Reference from GNSO, GAC and ALAC; the ALAC had formally appointed a Liaison from us as a joint CO to both the JAS and Rec6CWG (operating under role definitions and mechanisms from the current near final draft GNSO WG guidelines Section 2.2 page 11 of GNSO Working Group Guidelines - clean - updated 20 May 2010.doc ) and both these Liaisons addressed serious concerns raised by their respective WG's since the Board resolutions have been published and the ALAC agreed that "Cheryl and ExCom to follow up on possibility of executive of two chartering organizations (GNSO and ALAC) speaking to Chuck about concerns re Board's reaction to JAS WG. Similar concerns regarding the response to the report from the Rec6CWG, will be raised by Cheryl in a teleconference between the CO's and Co-Chairs of that WG and again follow through on this will be actioned either by the ALAC or in any joint reaction from GNSO, GAC and ALAC that might occur (this will be followed though on either jointly with other issues or separately)." from AI's from ALAC meeting of 28 Sept. https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?action_items_28_september_2010_en
I am writing to you with this information and the following proposal so that the GAC and GNSO can consider what next steps they might wish to take jointly or severally with that which the ALAC intends to do. As I also mentioned in our call the GNSO Liaison to the Joint JAS-WG is expected to bring this matter forward at the GNSO meeting of the 8th of October and knowledge of ALAC deliberations and AI's on this matter may be of some interest or use to the GNSO Councils deliberations on this JAS specific matter as well as whatever might be raised regarding Rec6CWG.
On behalf of the At-Large Community involved and/or interested in these WG activities conducted since Nairobi and deadlined to feed into the Board Retreat where they were considering the new gTLD program Application Guidelines etc., ALAC will be writing to the Board and Senior staff involved, to requesting some information and materials that we trust will help us (as well as the WG participants and wider ICANN Community) the rational to the resolutions of the Board regarding the Reports provided, as well as some information as to depth and time taken in deliberation of the recommendations from the community (specifically the Consensus ones, but also those with Strong Support) by the Board and for any information and/or explanation we can be given to assist our understanding in the decisions outlined in those resolutions, we will also be requesting access to and prompt delivery of the Board briefing materials and staff briefings on these substantial reports, (the Board Books) under the previously announced intentions and guidelines for these publications, (since Brussels) noting that at this stage the community has not had access to the Aug meetings materials and if a similar delay was seen with this retreat / meeting we would still be requesting information, explanation and assistance towards our understanding as we go into the Catagena meeting. We have also been requested to write to the ATRT with these concerns and with copy of the requests we make.
There is concern in our community that the briefings and staff advice given to the Board may not have done justice to the degree of information and the specifics of the various recommendations in these reports, nor that sufficient time or debate was allocated to them and we will be seeking assurances and information to disprove or otherwise these fears.
My proposal to GNSO and GAC is that with the knowledge of how our AC is planning to proceed and brief outline on some of the matters we wish to address, would GNSO and/or GAC like to collaborate and proceed in these inquiries and analysis as a joint activity? It is our belief that particularly where we were jointly operating as Chartering Organisations or in Cross Community mode this would be quite advantageous and if GNSO and/or GAC do wish to do so the ALAC and I look forward to the opportunity to continue to build better and more robust models for multi-stakeholderism and bottom up consensus built policy processes in ICANN.
Chuck I trust this missive is timely enough for it to be of some use to the GNSO Council meeting on the 8th and Heather recognizing that the GAC does not have an intersession model that matches the frequency of ALAC and GNSO Council meeting do let me know if there is anything I can do to assist any discussion and deliberations your AC is making on these matters and note also that as ALAC works with all of At-Large and at-large, we would value any individual or partial/subset interactions and interventions from your Members and Constituencies, if you as SO and AC are unable to join us in cross community collaboration on this...
I look forward to your Council and AC reactions to this proposals and towards ALAC and A-Large working with you in any way deemed most suitable and effective on this issue in the near future. Please note that by our mid month ExCom meeting (held in the week of Oct 11 TBC) where we next review our AI's I would like to have your feedback, guidance and suggestions on how you wish to proceed. Naturally as leadership and key representation in the ICANN Community we can I believe work more effectively and successfully in concert and collaboration rather than by divided effort on this and many other matters, and I hope your structures might see it that was as well.
Kindest regards,
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO)
Chair of ALAC 2007- 2010
*********************************************************** William J. Drake Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html www.linkedin.com/in/williamjdrake ***********************************************************
*********************************************************** William J. Drake Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html www.linkedin.com/in/williamjdrake ***********************************************************
I believe that the sentence that Tim is referring to is "It is our belief that particularly where we were jointly operating as Chartering Organisations or in Cross Community mode this would be quite advantageous and if GNSO and/or GAC do wish to do so the ALAC and I look forward to the opportunity to continue to build better and more robust models for multi-stakeholderism and bottom up consensus built policy processes in ICANN." I do not claim to speak for Cheryl (but I have copied here on this note), but I will give my views. We tend to use the same words but with many different meanings in ICANN. There is no doubt that the Bylaws give the GNSO Council full and sole control of the gTLD Policy Development Process. The PDP is a very specific process and its outcomes are subject to very special Board treatment. With the current working group model that still gives others (both affiliated with AC/SOa or not) the ability to participate. But in my mind, the GNSO is not the only part of ICANN which has an interest in the more general gTLD issues and the two recent working group are examples. As indicated in the CCT report recently approved by the GNSO Council, cooperation with other ACs and SOs is desirable. I note that Cheryl did not capitalize Policy or Processes and I think clearly meant the terms in their most general sense. Despite the general Board rejection of the products of the two recent cross-constituency WGs, I would like to think that we need to continue to use such models when and where it seems to be advantageous. The alternative to the direction indicated by the sentence is that the GNSO or the GNSO Council refuse to participate in activities with the other groups, or that the other groups not be allowed to undertake any gTLD-related discussions on their own unless "led" by the GNSO. I don't think that either would be a desirable way forward. I do not see any of this diluting the role of the GNSO and GNSO Council. It may make things more complex at times, but if that is the price to pay for good outcomes, I think it may be a worthwhile trade-off. Alan At 06/10/2010 11:18 AM, Tim Ruiz wrote:
Well Bill, if that was all it was about that might be true. But the second sentence of the first paragraph of the excerpt clearly indicates a bigger picture goal. So perhaps how we proceed all depends on how we do it and what it involves. Getting more info on the Board's decisions is one thing, extending it beyond that is another.
Tim
participants (4)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Tim Ruiz -
tim＠godaddy.com
-
William Drake