Hi Jean-Jacques, I am in full agreement with Joe and Wolf-Ulrich's comments below. They captured the sense of London very well, and I too would like to see the poll continue. Best regards, Lynn On Jul 27, 2014, at 10:03 AM, "WUKnoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> wrote:
Cher Jean-Jacques, hello Colleagues,
as I try to refresh my memory on what was decided by the group in London Samantha Dickinsons extensive minutes can be of helpful assistance. " Alhadeff nominated Cooper as interim chair.
Cooper put the question of two or three co-chairs to the hum: three co-chaired was the option favored by the group." (p. 17 of day 2)
This to me is not "unanimous" rather than a "tendency" between 2 options. I admit that the other options came (again) in through later discussing on the list. The question Jean-Jacques touches is whether a hum is a decision or rather a snapshot of where we stood at that moment without having taken a final fecision on structure and number. I personally tend to snapshot.
With this I don't see a need to discontinue polling the options on the website. Admittedly I would have strong concern to take any decision if until the given deadline a significant number of responses is not given.
My comment re the letter of the ALAC chair:
The letter points out that "The Transfer of the IANA Functions’ Stewardship, as initiated by the US Government's National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), is about divesting US Government oversight and transferring its responsibility to the GLOBAL Internet Community". The NTIA announcement says verbatim: “...to the global Multistakeholder Community”. Which makes no difference in the point ALAC makes here (“GLOBAL”) but shows a different perception re the “Community”.
I agree that the global approach should be reflected in the process of finding the proposal to the NTIA. Although the “US weight” in the ICG is heavy (as a result of the selection process in the various interest groups) I doubt the global approach must be fully reflected in the ICG chaimanship rather than in the structure of the groups preparing the detailed proposal. I’m sure this shall become a discussion topic when the CCWG initiated by ccNSO and GNSO shall come into work.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: Subrenat, Jean-Jacques Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2014 11:50 AM To: alissa@cooperw.in Cc: ICG Internal Subject: [Internal-cg] URGENT, suggested poll.
Good morning Alissa, Hello Colleagues,
The Chair of the ALAC has asked me to bring to your attention the following:
1) In his recent message to this list, Olivier pointed out that "The ALAC considers it essential to uphold the decision taken in London to appoint 3 Co-Chairs, the process of which cannot be put to fault". There has not yet been a response or reply to this letter.
2) The poll your have set up regarding the leadership structure proposes several alternatives, but is based on a makeshift process following someone's ad hoc suggestion: this cannot in any way have the same standing as the UNANIMOUS decision of the CG in London to have 3 Co-Chairs.
In careful consideration of the above, the ALAC respectfully requests that the decision taken in London about the leadership structure be acted upon without delay, and that the proposed poll be discontinued.
It is the sincere hope of the ALAC that the Coordination Group will take this opportunity to fully implement the principles of diversity, balance and fairness, so as to create a truly global trust regarding its membership and confidence in its processes.
Thank you.
Best regards, Jean-Jacques. _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg