Comments: In-reply-to Nacer Adamou Saidou <adamou.nacer@gmail.com> message dated "Sun, 08 Dec 2013 18:56:07 +0300." -------- Nacer,
I want to say that this is my very first involvement with an ICANN working group, so I maybe wrong in my understanding.
Welcome to ...
But my understanding is that the output of our contribution is based on consensus. That means also (once more according to my understanding) that (co)-chair, except some administrative duties, cannot change in their own direction the decision made from the whole group. Please, let me know if I am wrong.
It depends. In theory this working group will conduct itself according to the process(es) established by the GNSO Council, and over the years we (various contributors) have made efforts to institutionalize several latent problem areas like actual, or apparent conflicts of interest and what we've thought were credible solutions to these specific problems. However, we have a history, one that Steve mentioned in his candid note, there are individuals with interests and these have been quite large in our past and remain. In a two sentence summary, we formed "consitutencies" to constitute the original DNSO (later renamed the GNSO) in 2000, and proceeded to be deadlocked over several issues (privacy being one), and in an attempt to resolve the policy deadlock reformed the GNSO into two "houses", contracted parties and non-contracted parties, and also made changes related process and its control to the GNSO's PDP process(es) and the GNSO's operations. As Steve pointed out, even with all this we, the "volunteers" have our histories of, and our present, alignments. Where Steve and I differ is in our pessimisms -- whether we can work out a means of self-interest management through the usual plurality of co-chair means -- which I hope we can, or must find a single disinterested person -- Steve's solution. Another think to keep in mind as this is your first invovement with an ICANN working group is that not all of what is called "ICANN" operates under the process(es) of the GNSO, and "consensus" can take on very different meanings in other contexts. Eric