[dow1tf] Clarification of participation in WHOIS task force calls by alternates

[Marc Schneiders]

(I have trimmed the cc's)

During yesterday's teleconference of the council, I spoke up and
indicated I was not happy with the solution, esp. not since it meant
coming back upon an earlier compromise. Given the fact that other
constituencies saw no problems, it was a lost battle to oppose it
100%. I was glad that the chair made two things very clear, when I
asked:

1. Multiple reps participating in the discussion is not allowed, just
giving a fact occasionally
2. If a chair of a TF allows opinions to go as facts, people can
complain with the council


On Fri, 19 Dec 2003, at 11:01 [=GMT-0500], Milton Mueller wrote:

> Bruce and others:
>
> GNSO Taks Forces are not neutral, purely informational bodies.
> They are intended to be representational and they are
> by necessity highly political. Therefore we need simple,
> clear rules regarding participation. The "one voice/constituency"
> rule guarantees fairness in representation and avoids
> warping the politics of the deliberations by giving one
> constituency multiple voices.
>
> I know there are powerful people on the sidelines who
> wish to inject their views into any and all task forces at
> specific times. That is precisely why we need impartial
> and unambiguous rules against ex parte communications.
> That temptation must be resisted. It is not a good sign
> that at the first bit of pressure the GNSO Council has
> caved in to make the procedure less fair,
> because it contrains precisely those parties that it was
> designed to constrain.
>
> Allowing the Chair of the TF to decide who has relevant
> "facts" to contribute and using discretion to permit some
> alternates to speak while preventing other alternates from
> speaking is simply not an acceptable policy. If the TF needs
> specific facts from specific parties it can issue requests
> for them in the form of email. Also, I note that the
> ICANN staff was supposed to fulfill that role.
>
> In short, I see nothing here except an unacceptable
> attempt by known parties to multiply their voices on
> the task force so as to dominate the politics. This must
> be rejected, and if it is not NCUC representations will
> make a procedural issue out of it on the Task Forces.
>
> --MM
>
> >>> "GNSO SECRETARIAT" <gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org> 12/19/03 03:38AM >>>
> [To: dow1tf[at]gnso.icann.org
>
>
> The GNSO Council discussed this issue during its meeting on 18 Dec 2003.
>
> It was recognised that alternates play a valuable role in task force
> work in using their own network of contacts and resources to collect
> data together for the task force.  Normally alternates would provide
> their work through the primary constituency representative on the task
> force.  It was noted however that during a particular call or physical
> meeting an alternate may have some useful "factual" information to
> provide that is relevant to the discussion.   Note that ICANN staff
> members and the GAC liaison have typically operated in that mode during
> GNSO council calls.  It was noted that a balance needs to be struck
> between alternates offering information that might be strongly related
> to a particular constituency viewpoint (e.g isolated events, anecdotal
> information, or a reference to a Web blog or an academic paper
> expressing a particular opinion) as opposed to factual information (e.g
> a reference to an existing ICANN policy, or a reference to a previous
> statistical survey, or ICANN workshop).
>
> The Council recommended that the chair of each task force be given the
> discretion to take advantage of the availability of alternate members
> for the purposes of providing factual information, whilst ensuring that
> each constituency expresses their particular opinion/viewpoint on the
> policy issue under consideration through a single representative during
> any single call or physical meeting.   If a particular constituency
> believes that the intent of the motion of 20 Nov (which ensures fair
> participation by all constituencies regardless of their size and
> resources) is not being met, this should be raised with the chair of the
> task force, through their representative on the task force.  If a
> consituency is unable to resolve the issue with the task force chair,
> then the constituency can request guidance from the GNSO Council,
> through their representatives on the GNSO Council.
>
> Regards,
> Bruce Tonkin
> Chair, GNSO Council
>
> posted by: GNSO Secretariat
>
>
>