[At-Large] GNSO Council Motion on Cross-Community Working Groups

[William Drake]

And as I just replied on the ALAC list (maybe should merge the conversations if there's follow up), we've talked about this enough so I'm aware of your general stance, which I broadly share.  But what would be particularly helpful to know is whether AL has any specific responses to specific elements of the proposed principles, including suggestions of language tweaks.  If not ok, but thought I'd ask…

BD

On Jan 17, 2012, at 10:25 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:

> Hi Bill,
> 
> As I answered on the At-Large list, I am appreciative of your message, and of the NCSG efforts to preserve common sense.
> 
> The GNSO is welcome to do whatever it wants to unilaterally regarding its internal processes, but it cannot impose such regulation on others. As you rightly point out, had the guidelines been followed rigidly the JAS effort may have never happened, and that would have been an unacceptable outcome.
> 
> It is significant -- and very telling -- that the GNSO policy about working with other constituencies was itself formed in isolation from these constituencies. This was definitely an opportunity missed, but I won't lose sleep over it. It's my understanding that the At-Large Community has always been eager to participate in cross-community groups, but we will not have the terms of that participation dictated to us -- especially if such terms try to artificially limit our bylaw-mandated role to advance the interests of Internet end-users.
> 
> - Evan