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

[Joy Liddicoat]

My take on the discussion so far is that there is no consensus (rough or
otherwise) in favour of these motions, but there is a desire for the GNSO to
be talking with other constituencies about cross constituency working group
principles.
On that basis the option is to either vote against or a *principled*
abstention (ie on the basis of lack of cross constituency co-operation in
the development of these).
Views?
Joy

-----Original Message-----
From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of
Nicolas Adam
Sent: Thursday, 19 January 2012 8:21 a.m.
To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
Subject: Re: [At-Large] GNSO Council Motion on Cross-Community Working
Groups

Having principles should in no way prevent from being strategical.
Thought I'd voice this since i have been sounding off a lot on principles.

I don't believe in karma, but i hate inesthetical things with a passion.
Fortunately, I find good strategy to be of the highest aesthetical order.
While I think principles are important, weaving them unstrategically is
aesthetically reprehensible to me.

So on the 3 options, I don't know which i would push. Note that I sometimes
expect the people that are able to do politics and compromise to use my
principled opposition as best they see. This is why i voted for them. I try
to give munition as well as myopinion but I am happy to defer to our elected
representatives who are in positions to see more globally (and
strategically) than I can with my limited experience .... .

Nicolas

#########

Bill, a few questions (for when you have time, of course, and with thx in
advance):

why wouldn't an amendment pass? and what was the outreach vote that had the
GNSO divided?

Can someone comment on the economy/culture of vote trading/politics between
both GNSO's SGs? is there for instance a recent paper recounting recent
negotiations or some such?


On 18/01/2012 8:04 AM, William Drake wrote:
>> >  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?