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.
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
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
I also agree. The various bottom-up community processes will conduct the work and submit the proposals to the ICG. It is not the job of the ICG to make substantive decisions concerning the output of the community's consensus recommendations. The ICG is simply the facilitator to help bring the proposals together into a single cohesive recommendation with consensus support. In my opinion, the role of the chair or chairs is only to help us coordinate our work and ensure the consolidation process is workable, focused on timely delivery of a joint recommendation, and is as efficient as possible. Diversity in all forms (geographic, gender, language, interest) should unquestionably be a part of the community processes that develop and recommend their respective consensus positions. As we discussed and agreed in London, the role of the chair or chairs is explicitly NOT to represent any particular group and IS based on the ability to get the job done. I raised the concern in London that by expanding the number of co-chairs to three, we risked politicizing the role unnecessarily. I think that's now happening. We should refocus our attention on the operational needs of the group and the demands of the position rather than injecting political concerns into a purely administrative role. If I'm off-base here, please let me know what I'm missing. Regards, Keith On Jul 27, 2014, at 4:57 PM, "Lynn St.Amour" <Lynn@lstamour.org> wrote:
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
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Nothing to add to this thread, except my agreement with Keith, Lynn and Wolf. Thanks— J. On 7/27/14, 10:24 , "Drazek, Keith" <kdrazek@verisign.com> wrote:
I also agree.
The various bottom-up community processes will conduct the work and submit the proposals to the ICG. It is not the job of the ICG to make substantive decisions concerning the output of the community's consensus recommendations. The ICG is simply the facilitator to help bring the proposals together into a single cohesive recommendation with consensus support.
In my opinion, the role of the chair or chairs is only to help us coordinate our work and ensure the consolidation process is workable, focused on timely delivery of a joint recommendation, and is as efficient as possible.
Diversity in all forms (geographic, gender, language, interest) should unquestionably be a part of the community processes that develop and recommend their respective consensus positions.
As we discussed and agreed in London, the role of the chair or chairs is explicitly NOT to represent any particular group and IS based on the ability to get the job done. I raised the concern in London that by expanding the number of co-chairs to three, we risked politicizing the role unnecessarily. I think that's now happening.
We should refocus our attention on the operational needs of the group and the demands of the position rather than injecting political concerns into a purely administrative role. If I'm off-base here, please let me know what I'm missing.
Regards, Keith
On Jul 27, 2014, at 4:57 PM, "Lynn St.Amour" <Lynn@lstamour.org> wrote:
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
_______________________________________________ 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
Jean-Jacques: I think we can all agree that there was a decision in London to have 3 co-chairs that gained a very slight majority over two co-chairs - recall the humming. I think to suggest that there was a 'unanimous position" on three co-chairs is an overstatement of the conclusion and the process. While I agree that a broad consensus should emerge if we wish to change the London decision, I do not know that we thought that any decision was beyond question or amendment... My concern here is much broader than the number of chairs, which for me is an administrative issue, since chairs are not clothed with anything but consultative and administrative responsibility. My concern is the confusion related to the process issues and the need to create greater clarity. For administrative issues I think that, going forward, the doodle poll is a good way to get a "sense of the room" while online. Hopefully the summer is the reason why participation on the list has been so spotty. For our project to be a success we need real and widespread participation in discussion and decision-making. I think we may also need more discussions related to how we deal with discussions and decision-making on substantive issues. Best-regards, Joe On 7/27/2014 5:50 AM, Subrenat, Jean-Jacques wrote:
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
Hi Jean-Jacques, Thanks for your note. Comments are below, in-line. On 7/27/14, 2:50 AM, "Subrenat, Jean-Jacques" <jjs@dyalog.net> wrote:
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.
I’m happy to send an acknowledgment of the receipt of the letter to Olivier if that is what he is expecting. I have not engaged with some of the constituencies present here before, including ALAC, so forgive me for learning on the fly. I’ll do that now. I would say that as a general matter (and for the sake of the sanity of us all!), allowing at least 24 hours for a response to anything — and 72 hours for responses to weekend emails — should be considered acceptable going forward. Personally I know that I will definitely have times when my day job responsibilities will push the edges of those deadlines.
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.
I guess I’m not quite seeing the distinctions you are drawing here. The process we followed in London was a bit makeshift and ad hoc itself, no? And as others have pointed out on this thread, the session on this topic concluded with three hums wherein one had more support than the others, but there was no unanimity (see p. 195 of the day 2 transcript [1]). Furthermore, one point on which I believe the group does have very strong agreement is that we should operate by rough consensus, so unanimity is not a bar that we need to meet on every decision (of course it’s always nice when we can).
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.
As mentioned in my mail about the poll, I think it behooves us to determine a leadership structure that is broadly supported within the group. The poll is a way for us to gain information about that question. If, as you say, there is broad support for the three co-chairs option, then the poll will give us confidence to confirm that, bolstering the hum that was taken in London. I don’t see how having less information about what leadership structure the group desires helps us. Best, Alissa [1] https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/transcript-coordination-group-1 8jun14-en.pdf
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.
My own views are as follows: - We made a decision in London for 3 co-chairs. It was not unanimous, but it was clear, declared and minuted. - The decision was altered in an online discussion which must be described as “ad hoc” since it took place place prior to any setting of expectations on participation or decision processes. - That alteration has been since challenged strongly. - I feel that under these circumstances the London decision must stand. The substance of the decision itself is important, since it is seen to be related to the diversity and fairness of the ICG and its decision processes. Even if this is a perception only, or without practical consequences, it is a significant one which I feel must sway us towards the more diverse and “fair" solution, namely 3 co-chairs as initially decided. Thanks, Paul. ________________________________________________________________________ Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC <dg@apnic.net> http://www.apnic.net +61 7 3858 3100 See you at APNIC 38! http://conference.apnic.net/38 On 29 Jul 2014, at 1:06 am, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:
Hi Jean-Jacques,
Thanks for your note. Comments are below, in-line.
On 7/27/14, 2:50 AM, "Subrenat, Jean-Jacques" <jjs@dyalog.net> wrote:
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.
I’m happy to send an acknowledgment of the receipt of the letter to Olivier if that is what he is expecting. I have not engaged with some of the constituencies present here before, including ALAC, so forgive me for learning on the fly. I’ll do that now.
I would say that as a general matter (and for the sake of the sanity of us all!), allowing at least 24 hours for a response to anything — and 72 hours for responses to weekend emails — should be considered acceptable going forward. Personally I know that I will definitely have times when my day job responsibilities will push the edges of those deadlines.
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.
I guess I’m not quite seeing the distinctions you are drawing here. The process we followed in London was a bit makeshift and ad hoc itself, no? And as others have pointed out on this thread, the session on this topic concluded with three hums wherein one had more support than the others, but there was no unanimity (see p. 195 of the day 2 transcript [1]).
Furthermore, one point on which I believe the group does have very strong agreement is that we should operate by rough consensus, so unanimity is not a bar that we need to meet on every decision (of course it’s always nice when we can).
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.
As mentioned in my mail about the poll, I think it behooves us to determine a leadership structure that is broadly supported within the group. The poll is a way for us to gain information about that question. If, as you say, there is broad support for the three co-chairs option, then the poll will give us confidence to confirm that, bolstering the hum that was taken in London. I don’t see how having less information about what leadership structure the group desires helps us.
Best, Alissa
[1] https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/transcript-coordination-group-1 8jun14-en.pdf
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
participants (8)
-
Alissa Cooper -
Drazek, Keith -
James M. Bladel -
joseph alhadeff -
Lynn St.Amour -
Paul Wilson -
Subrenat, Jean-Jacques -
WUKnoben