Thank you very much for this Bill. Much appreciated. Nicolas On 19/01/2012 5:04 AM, William Drake wrote: > Hi Nicolas > > On Jan 18, 2012, at 8:21 PM, Nicolas Adam wrote: >> >> So on the 3 options, I don't know which i would push. Note that I >> sometimes expect the people that are able to do politics and >> compromise to use my principled opposition as best they see. This is >> why i voted for them. I try to give munition as well as myopinion but >> I am happy to defer to our elected representatives who are in >> positions to see more globally (and strategically) than I can with my >> limited experience .... . > > I've asked Council to defer this to San Jose, so there's time for us > all to mull how to approach... >> >> Bill, a few questions (for when you have time, of course, and with >> thx in advance): >> >> why wouldn't an amendment pass? > > There's a pretty strong desire across the industry SGs to have clear, > consistent, and (in my view, overly) restrictive rules for how CCWGs > operate. This reflects a number of factors, e.g. Council is all > about process formalization, which has long driven NCUC a bit nuts. I > guess the most charitable interpretation I could give it is that for > companies with skin in the game and contracts, lawyers, and potential > legal action as the environment this is somewhat understandable, but > it extends down to all levels of minutia and circumstances where such > considerations wouldn't seem so imperative…there've even been meetings > at which people said that our informal topical chat dinners with the > board should be minuted and so on…it's just become so instinctive that > it's the default. From that perspective, CCWGs apparently look like > out of control exercises that could spin the earth off its axis. > > There is also fear that CCWGs could try to set "Policy" and thus > end-run around Council, particularly in cases where there's opposition > or a desire for changes in some corner of the GNSO. In principle it's > understandable that SGs and their reps would want to preserve their > prerogatives and roles under the Bylaws, and indeed we presumably > wouldn't want to see this happening a lot more than it already does > since that'd equally erode our ability to meaningfully participate and > influence things. In practice though this concern has arguably been > overblown, inter alia for reasons Avri's mentioned. Here and > elsewhere, the JAS WG process brought this to a head, e.g. lot of > people got freaked out about JAS reports and recs going to the board > for consideration before Council had managed to act on them. The > story here would take a few pages to really lay out and I don't have > time now, maybe someone else would care to recapitulate. There's also > the related and problematic boundary between what's policy and what's > implementation of extant policy etc. > > So from the various industry standpoints, insisting that CCWGs proceed > from single joint charters and everything waits while the respective > SO/ACs go through their processes---which in the GNSO case can be > particularly laborious given the diversity of interests and the org > culture---is viewed as imperative. But several of us said yesterday, > this seems overly restrictive and one could imagine cases in which > other chartering SO/ACs might want a more flexible approach. > > Again, JAS was at the core of this—I don't recall similar complaints > about JIG, Rec. 6, or other CCWGs. The baseline notion in telecom and > other sectors that regulation should balance a little between > commercial and social considerations (for universal service, > nondiscrimination etc.) just doesn't seem to be accepted as applicable > by some in this field. Problem is, Council approved the original > charter, and all the discussion that led up to that should have made > clear some sort of balancing could ensue. But things changed post hoc > for reasons I won't get into here…Maybe Avri, Rafik or others would > care to amplify. > >> and what was the outreach vote that had the GNSO divided? > > Another long story…we've discussed this recently on the monthly calls > (for which there are transcripts and recordings) and list, but the > bottom line was there was a working group that put forward a plan for > a multistakeholder Outreach Task Force > gnso.icann.org/drafts/otf-draft-charter-18oct11-en.pdf > <http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/otf-draft-charter-18oct11-en.pdf> comprising > reps of the SGs that'd assess GNSO-related outreach (particularly viz. > developing country folks) and provide an umbrella framework for > coordination of efforts going forward; a lot of people had expressed > support for the concept and it didn't seem likely to be a major bone > of contention; at the 11th hour CSG decided to oppose the motion on > this on the grounds that everything should be done at the > SG/constituency level with resources provided, and asked for a > deferral so they could propose an alternative, which was presented as > likely being reasonably minor amendments that'd preserve the overall > effort; NCSG supported the motion which had already been deferred > twice and was laying around forever, and asked for a vote; we lost, in > part because CPH thought CSG should have more time if they wanted; and > at the next meeting, on the 12th hour, CSG came back with a motion > that basically set aside the OTF (surprise!), which nobody seconded, > so it wasn't voted, which left the issue in limbo and to be revisited > in San Jose. To which I should add that there's also a broader > ICANN-wide staff-led outreach discussion about which it is apparently > impossible to get the documentation; hopefully by SJ more will be > clear and we can take a holistic look at how outreach is done. We > also need an intra-NC conversation, since apparently we're not all on > the same page about outreach as an objective. >> >> Can someone comment on the economy/culture of vote trading/politics >> between both GNSO's SGs? is there for instance a recent paper >> recounting recent negotiations or some such? > > I know of no such research. Would be very interested to read it if > someone wanted to take a crack, though. > > Best > > Bill >> >> >> On 18/01/2012 8:04 AM, William Drake wrote: >>>> > I believe that anyone who does vote for it, should be ready to >>>> support its principles in any negotiation or risk the same >>>> approbation you are concerned about now. To hope that it will be >>>> ok, because ALAC will object may not be the most advisable course. >>>> Then again, US politics has taught me that there does not need to >>>> be a necessary connection between how one votes, what one says and >>>> what one does, so in the long run, perhaps it is only karma and >>>> doing what you think is right that matters. >>> US politics is a rich vein to mine for depressing lessons, but I'm >>> not sure I'd like to embrace that one. I do suspect though that any >>> SO/AC, not just ALAC, that enters into discussion with GNSO will >>> only accept rules of engagement they find amenable, so even if GNSO >>> sez it wants x that's not the end of the matter. >>> >>> We could defer, amend, both. Any thoughts on my suggestion in that >>> regard? >