[Fwd: Clarifications Regarding Staff Summary-Analysis of Stakeholder Group Charter Public Forum]

[William Drake]

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 <robert.hoggarth at icann.org>
> To:	Nick Ashton-Hart <Nick.Ashton-Hart at icann.org>
>
>
> 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 -  
> 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 Cheryl’s submission in the S/A.  At the beginning of  
> every S/A document we clearly include the caution to the reader that:
>
> “This 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.”
>
> 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:
>
> “[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.’ For identification purposes this document uses the ‘ALAC’  
> initials to refer to the submission.”
>
> 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 robert.hoggarth at icann.org 
>  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: nick.ashton-hart at icann.org
> Win IM: ashtonhart at hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart at mac.com /  
> Skype: nashtonhart
> Online Bio:   https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart

***********************************************************
William J. Drake
Senior Associate
Centre for International Governance
Graduate Institute of International and
   Development Studies
Geneva, Switzerland
william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch
www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html
***********************************************************

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20090808/b6e4100b/attachment.html>