I don't understand what the deal is, Norbert asked me the same question. The message was To: Nick and Cc: the Euralo and NCUC lists. Nick also Cced ALAC-internal but I can't send to them, asked Adam to forward. So why you only see NCUC-discuss is beyond me. Subject: Re: [Fwd: Clarifications Regarding Staff Summary-Analysis of Stakeholder Group Charter Public Forum] From: [log in to unmask] Date: August 10, 2009 2:52:29 PM GMT+02:00 To: [log in to unmask] Cc: [log in to unmask], [log in to unmask], [log in to unmask] , [log in to unmask] Bcc: [log in to unmask] On Aug 10, 2009, at 2:43 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > Different list addresses slip off and on, but > > <[log in to unmask]> > > the European regional organization list, has I think been included > in all the thread. And the ALAC's main list has tended to be on, > but it varies (I think some of the lists may bounce when there are > too many recipients, and sometimes people forget...) > > Adam > > > At 8:34 AM -0400 8/10/09, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> Bill: >> Who exactly is seeing this exchange? All I see is NCUC-discuss >> being copied, which Nick is not on. >> I want Aat Laarge people and others to see this. You're doing a >> great job of blowing their cover! >> >> >> From: Non-Commercial User Constituency [NCUC- >> [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of William Drake [[log in to unmask] >> ] >> Sent: Monday, August 10, 2009 7:13 AM >> To: [log in to unmask] >> Subject: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] [Fwd: Clarifications Regarding Staff >> Summary-Analysis of Stakeholder Group Charter Public Forum] >> >> Hi Nick, >> >> Thanks for the reply. I don't want to go on beating a dead horse, >> but just for the record: >> >> On Aug 10, 2009, at 12:06 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: >> >>> Dear Bill: >>> >>> As you addressed the question in the first paragraph to me, I'm >>> replying, but as I didn't compose the staff summary Rob is really >>> the better person to say what was intended by the paragraph in >>> question, so I've copied him in. >>> >>> That said, I don't believe that Rob intended (or that what he >>> wrote actually suggests) characterises everything she said as >>> being from ALAC - in fact it is made quite clear that her comment >>> is a compilation of the previously-expressed views of the ALAC, >>> and not an Advisory. >>> >> >> Here's the language: >> >> Finally, although the majority of comments were strongly in support >> of returning to the original NCUC Charter version, ALAC favored the >> SIC°os NCSG Charter that, ³best meets the aims of the new GNSO >> Model and the Boards criteria, which we support, and believe is >> (with the additional version changes as at July 19th ) being >> essentially met.² Continuing in this vein, ALAC noted, ³Maturity >> and development of the new design GNSO and specifically the parity >> and viability of the User House will benefit greatly with the >> fresh start°o this Charter in our opinion provides and it should >> be noted that in it we can see that the opinions and views brought >> forward in our processes, activities and meetings on the matter >> have been recognised, heard and considered.² [p.10] >> >> Two commenters did not concur with the majority view. ALAC said, >> ³At each of the User House Meetings since Cairo the ALAC has >> advised a lack of support and various concerns about the NCUC >> developed NCSG Charter version.² [p. 11] >> >> Whatever Rob intended, I think most people would read "ALAC favored >> the SIC's NCSG Charter" as meaning that ALAC favored the SIC's NCSG >> Charter, etc. >> >>> >>> I would also note that whilst it is not mentioned, Alan's >>> statement to the consultation period seems salutary in respect of >>> understanding more clearly what the issues were with the previous >>> comments made on previous drafts by the ALAC with respect to your >>> third paragraph. >>> >> >> Alan's statement <http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-stakeholder-charters/msg00069.html >> > http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-stakeholder-charters/msg00069.html >> "reiterate[s] that these comments are consistent with formal >> statements made by the ALAC over the last year." I don't see a >> formally approved statement at <http://www.atlarge.icann.org/correspondence >> >http://www.atlarge.icann.org/correspondence. I do see in the >> previous comment period a message from Alan <http://forum.icann.org/lists/sg-petitions-charters/msg00020.html >> >http://forum.icann.org/lists/sg-petitions-charters/msg00020.html >> that says "The following comment has the explicit support of a >> number of ALAC members, but has not yet been subjected to a formal >> ALAC vote. It does reflect the comments that have been made by ALAC >> members in recent months [checking the list record, about a >> handful]. The ALAC is divided on the support of the proposal >> submitted by Robin Gross of the NCUC. Some members feel that >> although there are some problems with the proposal, it generally >> addresses their concerns, and in particular, the de-linking of >> Council seats from Constituencies is a very good move in the right >> direction. Problems notwithstanding, the proposal should receive >> Board approval. Others feel that the issues still outstanding are >> sufficient to withhold Board support at this time." >> >> It is not obvious how "ALAC favored the SIC's NCSG Charter" can be >> deemed "consistent with" the earlier "The ALAC is divided on the >> support of the proposal submitted by Robin Gross of the NCUC..." >> especially given the lack of discussion, much less consensus or a >> formal position, on the SIC's NCSG Charter. But no matter, we all >> understand where we are here. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Bill >> >> >>> >>> I hope this is helpful; I'm sure Rob will reply on his own behalf >>> in due course. >>> >>> William Drake wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Nick >>>> >>>> Thanks for this. Let me make sure I understand what Rob's >>>> saying. CLO's personal statement endorsing the SIC charter can >>>> properly be characterized by staff as an ALAC endorsement of the >>>> charter because a) the staff summary does not purport to address >>>> every specific argument (but simply to mischaracterize them when >>>> convenient?) and b) her message was prefaced by a disclaimer >>>> stating that she was presenting a synopsis of ALAC conversations >>>> from before the SIC charter was even produced. So ALAC did not >>>> actually have to have discussed the SIC charter, much less have >>>> reached consensus on it, in order for staff to characterize her >>>> position as ALAC's. Do I have that right? >>>> >>>> Interesting parallel: I asked Rob in a GNSO council meeting, and >>>> reiterated in my submission to the public comment period, that >>>> statements made in support of the NCUC version by NCUC members >>>> and hundreds (counting the Internet Governance Caucus etc) of >>>> external supporters in the public comment period ending 15 April >>>> be taken into account in the summary of the PC ending 23 July. >>>> The reasons for doing so were straightforward: there was no >>>> reason to believe that the organizations and individuals that >>>> said they supported the NCUC model and therefore rejected the >>>> opposite model had changed their positions, so they should not >>>> be required to all mobilize and restate their stances a couple >>>> months later, in the summer travel season (although some did). >>>> The suggestion was not acted upon or even mentioned in the staff >>>> summary. >>>> >>>> So: a synopsis of ALAC conversations during the previous PC >>>> period, in which it was concluded that there was no consensus in >>>> ALAC on the charters, can be cited as an ALAC endorsement of a >>>> version that was never discussed or agreed on. But a substantial >>>> number of comments from NCUC and its supporters during the same >>>> previous PC period that unambiguously supported the NCUC model >>>> and rejected the alternative did not merit mention. And in any >>>> event, civil society objections to the SIC charter in the July PC >>>> period should sort of be discounted because, the staff summary >>>> says, "well over half of the responses appeared to be a direct or >>>> indirect [fuzzy math?] result of a letter writing campaign >>>> initiated by Robin Gross." Outreach soliciting the public >>>> comments ICANN was soliciting renders those comments suspect, if >>>> it is done by NCUC. >>>> >>>> Thank you for clarifying once again how ICANN's bottom-up, >>>> transparent, and accountable community processes work. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Bill >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Aug 7, 2009, at 7:48 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dear All: >>>>> >>>>> As a couple of queries have come in from Bill and Adam with >>>>> respect to the staff summary of the NCSG public comment period, >>>>> Rob has sent along the below. >>>>> >>>>> -------- Original Message -------- >>>>> Subject: Clarifications Regarding Staff Summary-Analysis of >>>>> Stakeholder Group Charter Public Forum Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2009 >>>>> 08:50:47 -0700 From: Robert Hoggarth <mailto:[log in to unmask] >>>>> ><[log in to unmask]> To: Nick Ashton-Hart <mailto:[log in to unmask] >>>>> ><[log in to unmask]> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Dear Nick: >>>>> >>>>> I understand that there have been some recent discussion within >>>>> the At-Large community regarding the Staff Summary/Analysis (S/ >>>>> A) of the submissions in the GNSO Stakeholder Group Charter >>>>> Forum that closed on 24 July.- <http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#stakeholder >>>>> >http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#stakeholder - and >>>>> particularly the reference the S/A document makes to the >>>>> comments submitted by ALAC Chair Cheryl Langdon-Orr. >>>>> >>>>> As the staff person responsible for that document, I wanted to >>>>> make sure that I cleared up any potential confusion in the >>>>> attribution assigned to Cherylıs submission in the S/A. At the >>>>> beginning of every S/A document we clearly include the caution >>>>> to the reader that: >>>>> >>>>> ³This document is intended to broadly and comprehensively >>>>> summarize the comments of the various contributors to this forum >>>>> but not to address every specific argument or position stated by >>>>> any or all contributors. The Staff recommends that readers >>>>> interested in specific aspects of any of the summarized comments >>>>> or the full statements of others refer directly to the >>>>> originally posted contributions.² >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Further, with respect to the specific comments submitted by >>>>> Cheryl, I reproduced verbatim the disclaimer that she provided >>>>> at the top of her submission. Footnote one at the beginning of >>>>> the S/A document reads: >>>>> >>>>> ³[1] The Submission by Cheryl Langdon-Orr specifically noted the >>>>> following disclaimer, This comment is intended to ensure that >>>>> the Board Structural Improvements Committee (SIC) is aware of >>>>> and takes into account in this current public comment period the >>>>> previous activities, views and opinions, including Advice to the >>>>> Board, and ratified Statements of the At-Large Advisory >>>>> Committee (ALAC) and the At-Large Community with specific >>>>> reference to the development of the new structure of the GNSO, >>>>> its Council and the Stakeholder Group model. This is not a >>>>> formal or ratified statement or comment per se but rather a >>>>> synopsis of those previously provided in various fora to date.ı >>>>> For identification purposes this document uses the ALACı >>>>> initials to refer to the submission.² >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> If for any reason, Cheryl would like to clarify her comments or >>>>> if she thinks the initials I used to identify her comments were >>>>> inappropriate, please have her send me an email at <>[log in to unmask] >>>>> and I will work with the web-admin and tech-support teams to re- >>>>> open the Forum record to insert any clarifications she might >>>>> want to make to her submission. >>>>> >>>>> Besr, >>>>> >>>>> Rob Hoggarth >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Regards, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Nick Ashton-Hart >>>>> Director for At-Large >>>>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) >>>>> Tel: +33 (450) 42 81 83 >>>>> USA Tel: +1 (310) 301-8637 >>>>> Fax: : +41 (22) 594-85-44 >>>>> Mobile: (Switzerland): +41 79 595 5468 >>>>> email: <mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask] >>>>> Win IM: <mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask] / >>>>> AIM/iSight: <mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask] / >>>>> Skype: nashtonhart >>>>> Online Bio: <https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart>https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart >>>>> >>>> >>>> *********************************************************** >>>> William J. Drake >>>> Senior Associate >>>> Centre for International Governance >>>> Graduate Institute of International and >>>> Development Studies >>>> Geneva, Switzerland >>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask] >>>> <http://www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html>www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html >>>> *********************************************************** >>>> >> *********************************************************** William J. Drake Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland [log in to unmask] www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html ***********************************************************