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

[William Drake]

Hi

On Jan 17, 2012, at 11:25 PM, Avri Doria wrote:

> Hi Bill, 
> 
> Thanks for asking.
> 
> I recommend a vote against for several reasons
> 
> - Proposed in the GNSO without consultation with others.   Certainly does not show a willingness to work with others in an open environment - only willing when it is in an environment that it controls with a veto.  That isn't cooperation.  The GNSO really needs to learn how to work nicely with others.  If anything, having come up with a draft, they should be vetting it with their possible partners.

Well, to be fair, it's intended as an opening position, i.e. nailing down GNSO's stance going into the working with others in an open environment phase. The motion anticipates the subsequent negotiation of a "related set of principles" for community-wide adoption.  But I think it'd be better if the views from outside GNSO were taken on board at the front end rather than only post hoc in negotiation, hence my message to ALAC.
> 
> - Misunderstands  GNSO's own WG methodology.  All WGs are already open to all community members already.  The only difference about a CCWG is that  it has more than 1 chartering organization.  Each chartering organization should be able to get what it wants out of the joint work.  The ALAC may want to give advice, the GAC may want to give by-laws qualified advice, the GNSO may want to propose policy and the ccNSO may just want to share information.  What is the problem with this?  

Nothing, methinks.
> 
> - The GNSO's. or anyone else's, position on the outcomes from a CCWG should not be limited by any other SO or AC.    Yes, if several groups can come to a general SOAC consensus, that is wonderful and should be a goal whenever possible.  But it must not be a requirement.
> 
> - Each group should be able to do what it wants with the results of a CWG.  The Board is clever enough to be able to weigh the information it gets and know what it means.
> 
> - Nothing that calls itself cross-community should be structured in a way that allows any one of the sub-groups a veto.  In my view makes cooperation impossible.
> 
> This reads like a practice for subordinating any group that the GNSO decides to interact with.  And that, to me, seems inappropriate behavior by one stakeholder in a multi-stakeholder organization.

Again, I don't read the intentions of the drafters or others quite so darkly, but no matter.

As to how to vote: I'm not yet convinced that simply saying no would be our best move.  While I've not polled, I assume the other SGs will support the motion, so even if we got to 7 and prevailed it'd be us vs. the rest, and we just had a similarly divided vote on outreach.  And in that case we complained about CSG doing 11th hour reversals, particularly when they were on the WG that did the OTF, and here we'd be nixing something others may assume to be uncontroversial when we were represented on the DT and haven't expressed concern about the issue in months.  Moreover, aesthetics and karma aside, per above the principles wouldn't be the last word on the matter; ALAC and other SO/ACs could disagree when it comes time to negotiate community-wide principles, if any.

I guess the options are

1.  Accept as is and let the inter-SO/AC process work it out later
2.  Propose an amendment softening the single charter requirement, and then yes or no when it fails, as would seem likely
3.  No as is and annoy people FWIW

Would be good to hear more views

This is also being discussed on the ALAC lists if anyone cares to follow.  Below's a post I sent this morning.

Bill

—————

> From: William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch>
> Date: January 18, 2012 12:33:13 PM GMT+01:00
> To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com>
> Cc: ALAC Working List <alac at atlarge-lists.icann.org>, At-Large Worldwide <at-large at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [At-Large] [ALAC-Internal] GNSO Council Motion on Cross-Community Working Groups
> Reply-To: At-Large Worldwide <at-large at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
> 
> Hi
> 
> On Jan 17, 2012, at 11:55 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
> 
>> thanks for your kind note. This is the first I hear of this. I'll check
>> with the ExCom re: a response. I am particularly surprised that the GNSO
>> Council would engage in a unilateral decision such as this when the
>> functioning of CWGs affects both the GNSO but also the other SOs and ACs
>> taking part in CWGs.
>> 
>> That said, I note that the Motion mentions asking SO and AC Chairs to
>> provide input in 60 days so I gather that this process will extend to
>> outside the confines of the GNSO Council should the motion be passed.
> 
> 
> 
> Right, of course any principles the Council adopts are just a statement of its position going into possible negotiation of a "related set of principles" for community-wide adoption, and other SO/ACs will have ample opportunities to formulate responses and work it out with the Council.  So certainly there is no issue here of unilaterally imposing its model on anyone else.  Nevertheless, it is useful for the wider community to know where the Council is heading on this, and for the Council to be aware of any concerns others might have before locking in on its preferred model.  Hence the request for any inputs that Alan and if needed I can pass along at this stage.
> 
> Just to respond quickly to a few points:
> 
> 
> On Jan 17, 2012, at 10:38 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote:
> 
>> Suggested draft principle
>> could be as follows:-
>> 
>> In recognition of At Large's role in highlighting global end users interest
>> nothing shall take away the rights nor restrict in any way shape or form At
>> Large's capacity to constantly engage in raising the rights and interests
>> of end users. Whilst I note that (2)(c)(iii) covers it somewhat but it
>> appears a trifle inadequate.
> 
> I understand the concern, but suspect underscoring ALAC's mandate in a Council text would be a hard sell, especially since the latter doesn't affect the former.
> 
> On Jan 18, 2012, at 1:03 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
> 
>> On 17 January 2012 17:35, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> The point that will no doubt be a lightening rod following the JAS group is
>>> the stipulation that when formed, a CCWG should have a single
>>> charter. Although in the far reaches of my imagination I can come up with
>>> reasons that this should not be a rule, but I not at all sure that such
>>> edge cases need to be dealt with here.
>> 
>> 
>> I don't see the stretch. Soon to come will be RAA discussions in which the
>> issue of "rights", for end users and/or registrants will come out. In
>> previous GNSO meetings I have been told these issues have been out of scope
>> and are of no interest to them. If there is future cross-community work on
>> this issue I will not want to constrain the ALAC's ability to advocate for
>> end-user issues because it's out of the GNSO's scope. It may mean there are
>> components of the combined work in which the GNSO may have no interest, but
>> the lack of shared interest in (what some would see as) a side issue should
>> not present the larger issues from being discussed jointly.
> 
> On Jan 18, 2012, at 4:51 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
> 
>> If we (At-Large) want to work on 
>> something that is counter to the interests (or self-interest) of part 
>> or all of the GNSO, then is is not a really good CCWG.
> 
> Here I agree with Evan, which is why I, Avri and I think other NCUCers raised this in Council.  If the chartering groups' concerns completely align and make a single charter possible, great.  Conversely, if they are fundamentally incompatible, a CCWG is unlikely to be productive.  But in between these poles there's a lot of space, so one would hope some differences of emphasis don't by default mean that each should just retreats into its silo to do its own thing.  To me, a CCWG is in the first instance a platform for interspecies dialogue on issues requiring drill down reflection and recommendations—joint ones if possible, but if not, ok.  Consider the issue-set in a holistic manner, and if one group preferences issues a, c and e while the other preferences  b, d and f, and/or comes to different conclusions/recs on the same points, fine.  Why shouldn't the chartering (and as needed, rechartering) process allow for some variability as long as the groups are engaging in a coherent dialogue on matters of common concern?  Nor should the internal dynamics of one group hold back the progress of another in tackling the matters it cares about.  As the JAS experience ultimately demonstrated after the rechartering, a bit of variability can allow for innovation and help move things along (although obviously it can also lead to contestation, which ought to be manageable through better communication and coordination).
> 
> A priori I'd think it preferable for the principles to call for a single joint charter "where possible" or some such weasel formulation in order to give SO/ACs more latitude in working out the model to be followed in each case, and perhaps to offer some general guidelines for how things should be conducted absent one. But I suspect a motion amendment to that effect would go down in flames.  In any event, however NCSG votes, hopefully a mutually satisfactory community-wide solution can be worked out later (if in fact one thinks a fixed framework is needed).
> 
> Thanks for the input,
> 
> Best
> 
> Bill
> 
> 





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20120118/40fad0a0/attachment-0001.html>