Draft Council letter on the ARR

Wed Jan 20 17:14:41 CET 2010

Hi

Thanks Brenden for the feedback.

On Jan 20, 2010, at 4:35 PM, Brenden Kuerbis wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> This is a very good statement, thanks for all the work that went in to it.  IIRC, it addresses all of the comments made during our previous call.

Yes, I think the important point is to ask for wider participation and some communication, and others have agreed with us on that.
> 
> I agree with Bill that Chatham is a good compromise and will encourage panelists to speak freely.  And AFAIK, there is nothing preventing a panelist from saying elsewhere what they said themselves at a meeting under the Chatham House Rule.  This is helpful if one feels strongly that their particular constituency's position needs to be known.
> 
> Other suggestions: 
> 
> Add some academic references in a footnote re: group size and effectiveness 

Hmmm...I think the line about literatures on negotiation analysis, collection action and international cooperation was enough to make some of the biz folks say huh, not sure everyone would applaud geeking it up further.
> 
> Might it help to include examples of "related institutional settings"?  E.g., there are relatively large Working Groups in the IETF that achieve consensus, the IGF's MAG is another example that has been mentioned.

Problem is you list one and then others think why that one and not this other one and pretty soon you've got needless group micro-editing on a document that has to stabilize today so a motion can be made.  

Us academic types might like more precision, examples, etc., but when you're dealing with a negotiated multi-stakeholder setting sometimes leaving things a bit more open avoids issues....
> 
> I would support including the sentence “It might also be noted that GNSO registrants pay fees that fund well over 90% of ICANN's activities.”  What makes it objectionable to some?

You'd have to ask the IPC.  Although having expressed concern, which I felt obliged to acknowledge with the brackets, they've not actually made an argument.

Best

Bill
> 
> ---------------------------------------
> Brenden Kuerbis
> Internet Governance Project
> http://internetgovernance.org
> 
> 
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 3:49 AM, William Drake <william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch> wrote:
> Hi Robin,
> 
> That wasn't my language, CSG asked for it.  I don't actually see it as all that problematic though.  Chatham just means the identities of who said what are not revealed, not that what was said cannot be revealed.  One could see the argument for this, e.g. it depoliticizes things, people don't have to carefully mince their words to make sure that reviewer x's comments about board/staff/stakeholder y are attributed and thus can lead to ill will, lobbying, whatever.  Without this, some biz folks were uncomfortable with my saying there should be a two way flow of info with periodic reporting to AC/SOs and the ability of AC/SOs to offer inputs.  With no limitations we could end up with them demanding a sealed box approach instead.  Consider the MAG experience.
> 
> If you can't live it regardless let me know ASAP as I guess I'd have to send a substitute text for the motion, which might not get seconded or passed since it wouldn't be what the drafting team negotiated.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> BD
> 
> 
> On Jan 20, 2010, at 12:51 AM, Robin Gross wrote:
> 
>> Thanks for sending this draft council letter around.  It is very good except I do not agree that the review groups should operate under Chatham House Rules on confidentiality.  It would certainly be a step backward for a group that is to assess the openness and transparency of ICANN to operate in this secret fashion and contrary to ICANN's promises of openness and transparency.  Everything else in the letter looks good however.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Robin
>> 
>> 
>> On Jan 19, 2010, at 8:15 AM, William Drake wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi 
>>> 
>>> Please see the attached draft and let me know if you have any comments etc.  Otherwise I'll propose a motion tomorrow...
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> 
>>> Bill
>>> 
>>> <Draft GNSO Council response to the draft proposal on the Affirmation Reviews Requirements and Implementation Processes.pdf>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>> 
>>>> From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes at verisign.com>
>>>> Date: January 19, 2010 4:58:20 PM GMT+01:00
>>>> To: "William Drake" <william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch>, "GNSO Council List" <council at gnso.icann.org>
>>>> Subject: RE: [council] Draft Council letter on the ARR
>>>> 
>>>> Please forward this to your SGs/Constituencies right away and request
>>>> feedback.  The Council will need to make a decision on whether to submit
>>>> the comments or some revised version of them in our 28 Jan meeting.  If
>>>> anyone wants to make a motion in that regard, motions are needed by
>>>> tomorrow, Wednesday, 20 January.
>>>> 
>>>> Chuck 
>>>> 
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org 
>>>>> [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of William Drake
>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 10:40 AM
>>>>> To: GNSO Council List
>>>>> Subject: [council] Draft Council letter on the ARR
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hello,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Attached please find the drafting team's proposed response to 
>>>>> the draft proposal on the Affirmation Reviews Requirements 
>>>>> and Implementation Processes, for discussion with our 
>>>>> respective SGs and in the Council.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Best,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Bill
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>> 
>>> ***********************************************************
>>> 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
>>> ***********************************************************
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> IP JUSTICE
>> Robin Gross, Executive Director
>> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
>> p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
>> w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.org
>> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20100120/901a59b3/attachment.html>