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

[William Drake]

Hi a,

On Jan 18, 2012, at 1:42 PM, Avri Doria wrote:

> Hi Bill,
> 
> On 18 Jan 2012, at 07:16, William Drake wrote:
> 
>> 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.
> 
> 
> Of course as always , each g-counli member should vote as they see fit.  I was just giving a recommendation since I thought that is what you asked for.

Yes and yes, thanks.
> 
> If you beleive that as a team member you explicitly, or even implicitly for that matter, agreed to this as part of team consensus, then of course you should vote for it.  but that should not bind other NCSG g-council members.

I dropped off the drafting team, basically because I was the only one raising any concerns and was getting nowhere so I figured I'd preserve my position and deal with it when it got to this point.  
> 
> I believe that anyone who does vote for it, should be ready to support its principles in any negotiation or risk the same approbation you are concerned about now.  To hope that it will be ok, because ALAC will object may not be the most advisable course.  Then again, US politics has taught me that there does not need to be a necessary connection between how one votes, what one says and what one does, so in the long run, perhaps it is only karma and doing what you think is right that matters.

US politics is a rich vein to mine for depressing lessons, but I'm not sure I'd like to embrace that one.  I do suspect though that any SO/AC, not just ALAC, that enters into discussion with GNSO will only accept rules of engagement they find amenable, so even if GNSO sez it wants x that's not the end of the matter.

We could defer, amend, both.  Any thoughts on my suggestion in that regard?