<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Thank you very much for this Bill.<br>
<br>
Much appreciated.<br>
<br>
Nicolas<br>
<br>
On 19/01/2012 5:04 AM, William Drake wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:4857D9FA-ABEF-482A-929E-D9585AF5FDB8@uzh.ch"
type="cite">Hi Nicolas<br>
<div>
</div>
<br>
<div>
<div>On Jan 18, 2012, at 8:21 PM, Nicolas Adam wrote:</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#000000"><br>
</font>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 .... .<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
I've asked Council to defer this to San Jose, so there's time
for us all to mull how to approach...<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div><br>
Bill, a few questions (for when you have time, of course,
and with thx in advance):<br>
<br>
why wouldn't an amendment pass?</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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.</div>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div> and what was the outreach vote that had the GNSO
divided?<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
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 <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/otf-draft-charter-18oct11-en.pdf">gnso.icann.org/drafts/otf-draft-charter-18oct11-en.pdf</a> 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.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div><br>
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?<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
I know of no such research. Would be very interested to read it
if someone wanted to take a crack, though.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Best</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Bill<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div><br>
<br>
On 18/01/2012 8:04 AM, William Drake wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">> 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.<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">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.<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">We could defer, amend, both. Any
thoughts on my suggestion in that regard?<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>