Thanks for these helpful comments... bit of a naïve question, but why does
the GNSO need to approve these now, before at least using them as a basis
for consulting with others? Should the motion be rejected out of hand or
amended in some friendly fashion to propose consultation? I ask this without
the benefit of the wisdom of others - please do enlighten.
With thanks
Joy
-----Original Message-----
From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Avri
Doria
Sent: Wednesday, 18 January 2012 11:26 a.m.
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [At-Large] GNSO Council Motion on Cross-Community Working
Groups
Hi Bill,
Thanks for asking.
I recommend a vote against for several reasons
- Proposed in the GNSO without consultation with others. Certainly does
not show a willingness to work with others in an open environment - only
willing when it is in an environment that it controls with a veto. That
isn't cooperation. The GNSO really needs to learn how to work nicely with
others. If anything, having come up with a draft, they should be vetting it
with their possible partners.
- Misunderstands GNSO's own WG methodology. All WGs are already open to
all community members already. The only difference about a CCWG is that it
has more than 1 chartering organization. Each chartering organization
should be able to get what it wants out of the joint work. The ALAC may
want to give advice, the GAC may want to give by-laws qualified advice, the
GNSO may want to propose policy and the ccNSO may just want to share
information. What is the problem with this?
- The GNSO's. or anyone else's, position on the outcomes from a CCWG should
not be limited by any other SO or AC. Yes, if several groups can come to
a general SOAC consensus, that is wonderful and should be a goal whenever
possible. But it must not be a requirement.
- Each group should be able to do what it wants with the results of a CWG.
The Board is clever enough to be able to weigh the information it gets and
know what it means.
- Nothing that calls itself cross-community should be structured in a way
that allows any one of the sub-groups a veto. In my view makes cooperation
impossible.
This reads like a practice for subordinating any group that the GNSO decides
to interact with. And that, to me, seems inappropriate behavior by one
stakeholder in a multi-stakeholder organization.
thanks
avri
On 17 Jan 2012, at 15:57, William Drake wrote:
> Hi
>
> Any views from NCSG would be most helpful…
>
> Bill
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
>> From: William Drake <[log in to unmask]>
>> Date: January 17, 2012 9:23:15 PM GMT+01:00
>> To: ALAC List Internal <[log in to unmask]>
>> Cc: At Large Worldwide <[log in to unmask]>
>> Subject: [At-Large] GNSO Council Motion on Cross-Community Working
>> Groups
>> Reply-To: At-Large Worldwide <[log in to unmask]>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> As NCUC liaison to At Large I thought I should bring the following to
your attention.
>>
>> Some here may recall that there was quite a bit of controversy and debate
in the GNSO Council last year about the formation and operation of cross
community working groups. This arose in particular with regard to the JAS
process, various aspects of which stimulated a range of concerns across the
three industry SGs. Without reliving all the back and forth, these included
perceptions that the GNSO's role in policy development was being usurped or
at least nibbled at, concerns about the channels and procedures through
which JAS progress was reported out and the board responded, the extent to
which the chartering organizations should operate in synch, and so on. In
consequence, there has been a widespread desire among these SGs to lay down
clear rules of the road to regulate how CWGs function. In Council
discussions NCUC members argued for maintaining some flexibility and
subsidiarity to avoid tying hands too much, and noted inter alia that if
we'd followed a strictly regula!
>> tory approach ALAC would not have been able to help move the JAS process
along when the GNSO was, well, moving slower. It would be fair to say that
we were pretty much alone in these views.
>>
>> In October, the Council launched a drafting team to propose guiding
>> principles for CWGs going forward that would respond to the various
>> concerns. That team has now completed its work and a motion to
>> approve its Principles is on the agenda of our 19 January meeting.
>> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+19+Ja
>> nuary+2012
>>
>> People may wish to have a look at the Principles
http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/draft-principles-for-cwgs-23dec11-en.pdf, which
specify that all SO/ACs involved should adopt and follow a single joint
charter for CWGs, that CWGs outputs do not express community consensus per
se, and so on.
>>
>> If there are any views that people would like to have noted in the
Council discussion and vote, please let me know asap.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Bill
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ***************************************************
>> William J. Drake
>> International Fellow & Lecturer
>> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ University of Zurich,
>> Switzerland [log in to unmask]
>> www.mediachange.ch/people/william-j-drake
>> www.williamdrake.org
>> ****************************************************
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> At-Large mailing list
>> [log in to unmask]
>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
>>
>> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
>
|
