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

William Drake william.drake at GRADUATEINSTITUTE.CH
Mon Aug 10 17:28:06 CEST 2009 

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: 	william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch
	Date: 	August 10, 2009 2:52:29 PM GMT+02:00
	To: 	nick.ashton-hart at icann.org
	Cc: 	ajp at glocom.ac.jp, euro-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org, NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU 
, robert.hoggarth at icann.org
	Bcc: 	william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch


On Aug 10, 2009, at 2:43 PM, Adam Peake wrote:

> Different list addresses slip off and on, but
>
> <euro-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
>
> 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- 
>> DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of William Drake [william.drake at GRADUATEINSTITUTE.CH 
>> ]
>> Sent: Monday, August 10, 2009 7:13 AM
>> To: NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>> 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:robert.hoggarth at icann.org 
>>>>> ><robert.hoggarth at icann.org> To: Nick Ashton-Hart <mailto:Nick.Ashton-Hart at icann.org 
>>>>> ><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 
>>>>> >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 Cheryl¹s 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, ŒThis 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.¹  
>>>>> For identification purposes this document uses the ŒALAC¹  
>>>>> 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 <>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: <mailto:nick.ashton-hart at icann.org>nick.ashton-hart at icann.org
>>>>> Win IM: <mailto:ashtonhart at hotmail.com>ashtonhart at hotmail.com /  
>>>>> AIM/iSight: <mailto:nashtonhart at mac.com>nashtonhart at mac.com /  
>>>>> 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:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch>william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch
>>>> <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
william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch
www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html
***********************************************************

More information about the Ncuc-discuss mailing list