Role of Liaisons was Re: [] New GTLDs: ...

[William Drake]

Hi Avri

On Dec 12, 2011, at 4:31 PM, Avri Doria wrote:

> On 12 Dec 2011, at 03:17, William Drake wrote:
> 
>> And it's also not obvious to me, as I've said privately to Evan, that it's the proper role of a liaison from one group to come on the other's list and launch heated exchanges about the latter's positions and internal dynamics.  I have never jumped in on the ALAC list to object to things I find objectionable, even when the temptation's strong—the recent argument over WHOIS, in which it became abundantly clear that the ALAC's stance is not a consensus position among At Large members—was a case in point.  I don't see this as being the job, but maybe that's just me…
> 
> 
> I tend to support the notion of active Liaisons.  I do not think that it is just a process role, but is a role that allows to the views of another group and at least one of its members  to be included in the fullness of discussion.  Look at the successful way most ALAC Liaisons have worked with the GNSO, or the way all Liaisons participate in the Board as if they were members of the Board - except in voting.

These are completely apples and oranges.  The GNSO is a mulstiakeholder policy/management body in which the ALAC Liaison's representations are of the same character as those of the stakeholder groups and constituencies, weighing in on a joint decision making process from the perspective of the home group.  Ditto board liaisons, sort of.  Liaisons between individual silos is a whole different kettle of fish.  In this case the liaison is entering as guest into one group's house where they are sorting out their internal matters.  I don't believe that inserting screeds about "NCUC disagrees with you on this" at every turn would be particularly welcome, particularly if one takes into account the personalities and preoccupations that drive their discussion.  Let's imagine I were to do it the same way as Evan has here, since that's the model I said I didn't want to follow and is working out so splendidly.  So when there are two different factions in ALAC arguing over WHOIS, I guess I could take sides with one of them, characterize the other as trying to stifle and suppress debate, and encourage the preferred grouping to think about joining NCUC instead.  I'm sure that'd be viewed as a constructive engagement.  Or, during the last three weeks when they've been fixated on expressions of outrage a) about the subpar hotel they got in Dakar, and then b) an inept staff members' efforts to placate them by writing to the minister and causing a diplomatic uproar, I suppose I could have jumped in and said hey guess what, there's some feeling in NCUC that you're all a bunch of whining pampered poodles.  This too I'm sure would have be a trust builder that would advance the prospects for dialogue and cooperation.

When I was nominated to play this role, the two groups were basically at war.  The two chairs palpably found it difficult to sit in the same room together.  There was no cooperative discussion of anything.  One group had a member who'd filed a ombudsman complaint against someone from the other for not talking nice.  The ALAC CC push was being viewed as an effort to secure a hardwired Council seat under at the time up int he air NCSG charter.  The distrust and disconnect was pretty intense.  So I opted to serve as a bridge rather than a bomb thrower, and spent time enticing people to get together and talk in successive meetings, identify areas where we might be able to work together, etc.   The channel was reopened, and people cooperated well in several CWGs.  Just today I suggested consideration of a joint letter to the board in relation to the funding mechanism for JAS.  Given the history and sensibilities on both sides, In sum, I believe focusing on bridge building and opening communication channels has been the right approach, rather than rattling their cage with unsolicited external criticisms.  They know where we disagree, it's hardly a secret that needs to be revealed.

All that said, if you'd like me to be more belligerent, please send suggested slimes I can throw at them about the hotel fiasco or anything else, and I'll happily pass them along and say Avri thinks you should know that...

>  I think a liaison needs to be a fully participative role.  It is certainly what I expect from the people in the role.

I have a concrete suggestion if you'd like a role that goes beyond telling others how they should do their jobs.  We clearly need a liaison to the CSG.  Relations there have deteriorated rather badly, as will be on display in Technicolor in the Council discussion of the Outreach Task Force fiasco.  I would happily nominate you to serve as our liaison.  Since CSG and ALAC have similar positions on some items we care about, e.g. WHOIS, IPR, LEA, etc., there would be abundant opportunity to get in there and throw all the bombs you like.  Plus, CSG is riven with factionalism so you'd be well positioned to play one group off another by saying we support you and not you, etc.  So you could do the job precisely as you think it should be done.  Would you accept this nomination?  If so I can make it on the tonight's call.

Best,

Bill