ALAC - At Large LIST Discuss Copy on  the GNSO's CROSS COMMUNITY WORKING GROUP PRINCIPLES 

In  March 2012 the GNSO resolved that the 'MOTION TO APPROVE CROSS COMMUNITY WORKING GROUP PRINCIPLES' (outlined below in Motions 19 January 2012) was passed.

Whilst the ALAC then determined that it would not make a formal Statement or Response to this GNSO internal operational set of principles, but would be fully engaged in any ensuing JOINT  AC/SO discussions and development of an approach to Cross Community Work Groups (and their formal Chartering etc.,)  in the future; This page acts as a wiki 'repository' of the KEY POINTS of View in  community discussion  as expressed as opinions on the public ALAC INTERNAL and public At-Large email list and material referred to for reference at the various meetings and deliberations held.

Original email list archives  should be sort out  for complete thread, context and attributions.   https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-internal   and  https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large around Jan 18 to 20th 2012.

GNSO Council meetings/Motions19 January 2012

MOTION TO APPROVE CROSS COMMUNITY WORKING GROUP PRINCIPLES

Made by: Jonathan Robinson

Seconded by: Jeff Neuman  

Whereas, the GNSO from time to time has participated in cross-community working groups to address issues of common interest to other ICANN supporting organizations (SO) and advisory committees (AC); 

Whereas, the GNSO Council desires to develop a GNSO agreed perspective with regard to the role, function and method of conducting joint activities for future projects that respects and preserves the recognized roles and responsibilities assigned to each SO/AC under the ICANN Bylaws;  

Whereas, on 06 October 2011 the GNSO Council approved a charter and the formation of a Drafting Team to define a way forward for the effective chartering, functioning, and utilization of such cross-community working groups; 

Whereas, on 04 January 2012 the Drafting Team provided to the Council for consideration Draft Principles for Cross-Community Working Groups:http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/draft-principles-for-cwgs-23dec11-en.pdf. 

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT: 

Resolved, that the GNSO Council hereby approves the Draft Principles for Cross-Community Working Groups for its own guidance and requests staff to disseminate them to the Chairs of the Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees asking them to provide input to the GNSO Council in 60 days on both the principles themselves and the route forward for community-wide adoption or development of a related set of principles for the operation of Cross-Community Working Groups; 

Resolved further, the GNSO Council thanks the Drafting Team members for their work in developing the Draft Principles and disbands the Team.

=====================================================

<Begin Snip from email  thread>

Hi,

As NCUC liaison to At Large I thought I should bring the following to your attention.

Some here may recall that there was quite a bit of controversy and debate in the GNSO Council last year about the formation and operation of cross community working groups.  This arose in particular with regard to the JAS process, various aspects of which stimulated a range of concerns across the three industry SGs.  Without reliving all the back and forth, these included perceptions that the GNSO's role in policy development was being usurped or at least nibbled at, concerns about the channels and procedures through which JAS progress was reported out and the board responded, the extent to which the chartering organizations should operate in synch, and so on. In consequence, there has been a widespread desire among these SGs to lay down clear rules of the road to regulate how CWGs function.   In Council discussions NCUC members argued for maintaining some flexibility and subsidiarity to avoid tying hands too much, and noted inter alia that if we'd followed a strictly regulatory approach ALAC would not have been able to help move the JAS process along when the GNSO was, well, moving slower.  It would be fair to say that we were pretty much alone in these views.

In October, the Council launched a drafting team to propose guiding principles for CWGs going forward that would respond to the various concerns.  That team has now completed its work and a motion to approve its Principles is on the agenda of our 19 January meeting.https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+19+January+2012

People may wish to have a look at the Principles http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/draft-principles-for-cwgs-23dec11-en.pdf, which specify that all SO/ACs involved should adopt and follow a single joint charter for CWGs, that CWGs outputs do not express community consensus per se, and so on.

If there are any views that people would like to have noted in the Council discussion and vote, please let me know asap.

Thanks,

Bill
************************

On 17 January 2012 15:23, William Drake <william.drake@uzh.ch> wrote:

> People may wish to have a look at the Principles
> http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/draft-principles-for-cwgs-23dec11-en.pdf,
> which specify that all SO/ACs involved should adopt and follow a single
> joint charter for CWGs, that CWGs outputs do not express community
> consensus per se, and so on.
>

Hi Bill. Thanks for the update, and for the efforts of you and the NCSG on
the issue.

The GNSO is welcome to do whatever it wants to unilaterally regarding its
internal processes, but it cannot impose such regulation on others.

As happened with the JAS group, I for one will not abide by any imposed
regimen that prohibits an important effort from moving forward because a
community (or group of communities) refuses to agree on a charter (or tries
to scale back an existing one). Specifically, I would certainly not agree
to any move that artificially limited ALAC's bylaw-mandated scope by
excluding the interests of end-users.

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.- Evan************************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
************************

Dear Bill,

These are brief comments.
1)  Possible Purposes:
i) To provide information and recommendations to the chartering
organizations (and perhaps ultimately the broader ICANN community) in accordance with the
charter or directions from the chartering organizations.

ii) To provide a discussion forum to achieve greater community
understanding.

iii) In any event, consensus policy development must occur using current
Supporting

Organization (SO) and Advisory Committee (AC) rules.

I note that (1)(a)(iii) recognizes SO and AC rules. However, it does not
address situations where these rules may conflict and what is to be done
when there is a conflict of rules.

Aside from the rules, what is to be done when there is a conflict on
positions. The At Large is mandated to highlight positions of end users and
it would be great if this is somehow factored. 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.

Kind Regards,
Sala
************************

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.

- 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?

- 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.

thanksavri
************************

To get a few facts on the table:

The mandate of this group was not to set CCWG
rules, but to establish a baseline for what the
GNSO thought was important before entering into
discussions with the ALAC, ccNSO, ASO, GAC, or
whosoever wanted to participate. That is clear in
the motion. Since the GNSO rarely "delegates"
responsibility to negotiate on its behalf to its
Chair or others, it was felt that it was
important to understand the overall issues from
the GNSO perspective before entering into
multi-lateral discussions (which for practical
reasons will surely include a only small subset
of the GNSO Council). Moreover, it was felt that
input from the GNSO as a whole, and not just the Council was important.

That being said, the GNSO did have an interest in
ensuring that what it proposed was reasonable and
factored in, to the extent possible, the needs of
other groups. At the express request of the
Council, I participated in this group and was more than a bit active.

It is not clear exactly what will come out of the
final discussions with other ACs and SOs, but I
do not recall anything in the final results of
this drafting team that are totally unreasonable.

Several of the points are very GNSO-centric (and
perhaps ccNSO) in that they repeatedly stipulate
that formal "policy" must be carried out under
the rules set out in the ICANN Bylaws for such
policy development. I personally think that this
was not needed, since it is in the Bylaws, but
others felt it was good to reiterate.

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. If the
interests of the various parties are so different
at the start, perhaps a CCWG is not what we need.

Note that this principle talks about the
FORMATION of a CCWG. I do not believe that we
have ever participated in a CCWG that had
multiple disagreeing charters at the beginning.
It is not clear why one would enter into the
creation of such a group if the aims of the
participating bodies were not similar. In fact,
those who were around may recall that for the JAS
group, we did agree on a single charter. Due to a
clerical (honestly!) error, one clause was
omitted from the version that the GNSO approved.
When the charter came up to the ALAC, the ALAC
decided to drop that clause as well, as it was
felt that it was not sufficiently important to
warrant delaying the entire process until it
could go back to the GNSO for re-chartering (and
we believed that the group WOULD look at that
issue regardless of whether it was in the
charter). Other CCWGs such as DSSA all had a
single charter agreed to by one mechanism or another ahead of time.

You will notice that the principles are silent on
the issue of re-chartering part-way through a
process, the situation where JAS blew up. If you
recall the sequence of events there:
- the WG came up with a suggested revised charter.
- this time it was the ALAC that got to it first, and it was approved.
- when it came to the GNSO, there was substantive
discomfort and they did radical surgery to it,
taking out some parts and adding others (one of which the ALAC really liked).
- at that point, the JAS group would have had two
charters, which in some cases could be construed
as requiring they work in two orthogonal
directions at the same time - something that was not tenable.
- the ALAC revised its version, making it clear
that the JAS charter had a core part that was
common to both the GNSO and ALAC, and several
other end-products that were unique to the ALAC
but did not go against any of the core items.
- that was perhaps a bit awkward to work with,
but the JAS WG was willing and things proceeded
to the eventual VERY successful outcome, with the
GNSO supporting all end-products equally, even
the ones that they had not included in their charter.

Another area that may attract discussion is about
the rules that a CCWG will follow. The principles
simple say that to the extent possible, the WG
rules of the constituent bodies should be
followed. If they were all the same, that would
clearly be no problem. But in fact, other than
the GNSO, I suspect no other organization has
such a detailed set of rules. The ALAC, in its
own WGs, has generally abided by the GNSO rules
where they made sense and ignored those that did
not. Perhaps some day the ALAC will formalize
what its rules are. Or not. It *is* clear that
the rules and certainly the practices currently
vary, and although I am sure that every
organization would feel comfortable with *their*
rules dominating, what will come out of this
process is some sort of a compromise, perhaps
varying based on which bodies participate. And
they will likely vary over time as we get used to
these new groups. The principles are wisely
completely silent on the issue, other than to say
that the charter should specify the rules for any given WG.

Note that this set of principles does not attempt
to address (nor should they) how one reaches
consensus within a given WG. Whatever rules are
adopted for that group will need to address it,
but it may be specific to the issue and who the chartering bodies are.

The GNSO meeting where this will be discussed is
on Thursday at 11:00 UTC. If anyone has any input
for me as the formal ALAC Liaison, please get it
to me as soon as possible (the meeting is at
06:00 my time, so I will be offline for the
several hours preceding the meeting). As I cannot
make suggestions for formal changes to the
motion, please make sure to copy Bill as well.

Alan
************************

Thanks for your follow-up Alan, Evan and Sala, and thanks for the note,
Bill.

On 17/01/2012 23:35, Alan Greenberg wrote :
> The GNSO meeting where this will be discussed is
> on Thursday at 11:00 UTC. If anyone has any input
> for me as the formal ALAC Liaison, please get it
> to me as soon as possible (the meeting is at
> 06:00 my time, so I will be offline for the
> several hours preceding the meeting). As I cannot
> make suggestions for formal changes to the
> motion, please make sure to copy Bill as well.

I note that the proposed GNSO Council motion mentions:
"requests staff to disseminate them to the Chairs of the Supporting
Organizations and Advisory Committees asking them to provide input to
the GNSO Council in 60 days on both the principles themselves and the
route forward for community-wide adoption or development of a related
set of principles for the operation of Cross-Community Working Groups"

So if this motion gets passed, we'll have plenty of time to formulate a
full response rather than being tempted to shoot from the hip at 24h's
notice, which would effectively be carrying comments from individuals to
the GNSO council meeting, not the views of the ALAC.

Kindest regards,

Olivier
************************

On 17 January 2012 17:35, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:

Several of the points are very GNSO-centric (and perhaps ccNSO) in that
> they repeatedly stipulate that formal "policy" must be carried out
> under the rules set out in the  ICANN Bylaws for such policy development.

As we have seen in the gTLD rollout, the GNSO has repeatedly shown its own
willingness to overstep its bounds and deal in processes rather than policy
(ie, objection processes).

If the GNSO wants to be anal about how policy can be done, we also have the
obligation to point out that GNSO has less bylaw-based authority to comment
on non-policy implementation matters than ALAC does.

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.

There should be many, many opportunities to do cross-community work. If it
is to be constrained to always be the lowest common denominator of only
that which is of interest to all, not much of this will happen.

> I do not believe that we have ever participated in a CCWG that
> had multiple disagreeing charters at the beginning.
>

Alan, we have not participated in that many CCWGs, period. The concept is
still in its infancy and I see these regs as the wedge of an attempt to
thwart this concept before it becomes too dangerous to established power.

 In fact, those who were around may recall that for the JAS group, we did
> agree on a single charter. Due to a clerical (honestly!) error, one clause
> was omitted from the version that the GNSO approved. When the charter came
> up to the ALAC, the ALAC decided to drop that clause as well, as it wasfelt
> that it was not sufficiently important to
> warrant delaying the entire process until it could go back to the GNSO for
> re-chartering (and we believed that the group WOULD look at that issue
> regardless of whether it  as in the charter). Other CCWGs such as DSSA all
> had a single charter agreed to by one mechanism or another ahead of time.
>

This worked, and is an argument in favour of a status quo of flexibility.

You will notice that the principles are silent on the issue of
> re-chartering part-way through a process, the situation where JAS blew up.

If the proposed principles demand a single charter, then a post-creation
divergence in charter would demand disbanding of the WG. This is IMO
unacceptable.

> If you recall the sequence of events there:
>

I recall that ALAC did all the accommodation in an unsuccessful attempt to
find a middle ground.

> - that was perhaps a bit awkward to work with, but the JAS WG was willing
> and things proceeded to the eventual VERY successful outcome, with the GNSO
> supporting all end-products equally, even the ones that they had not
> included in their charter.
>

Evidence, please?

The GNSO motion on the JAS final report did not endorse it at all, but
simply acknowledged it and forwarded it to the Board.

That hardly constituted "support", and obviously feel short of a GNSO
request that the Board approve the JAS core component requests (such as fee
reductions unconstrained by a fixed fund).

> Another area that may attract discussion is about the rules that a CCWG
> will follow.

Why does this need to be set in stone?

Different problems call for different solutions, and constraining the
process before it starts is worse than counter-productive.- Evan************************

At 17/01/2012 07:03 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
>On 17 January 2012 17:35, Alan Greenberg
><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
>
>
>Several of the points are very GNSO-centric (and perhaps ccNSO) in
>that they repeatedly stipulate that formal "policy" must be carried
>out under the rules set out in the  ICANN Bylaws for such policy development.
>
>
>As we have seen in the gTLD rollout, the GNSO has repeatedly shown
>its own willingness to overstep its bounds and deal in processes
>rather than policy (ie, objection processes).

Actually, I think that "willingness" is the wrong word. The GNSO is
not limited to policy work, although some on Council have at times
taken that position. I view it more as stepping up to their
responsibilities to look at a wider range of issues than just making policy.

>If the GNSO wants to be anal about how policy can be done, we also
>have the obligation to point out that GNSO has less bylaw-based
>authority to comment on non-policy implementation matters than ALAC does.
>
>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.
>
>There should be many, many opportunities to do cross-community work.
>If it is to be constrained to always be the lowest common
>denominator of only that which is of interest to all, not much of
>this will happen.

I don't see any conflict here. 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. We do it
alone, or with someone else who IS interested. The GNSO is not the
only game in town. If (as you allude) we have interested that are a
super-set of GNSO interests but do not conflict, I would think that
people of good faith could come up with a charter that covers this.
If not, then it reverts to the first case.

>
>I do not believe that we have ever participated in a CCWG that had
>multiple disagreeing charters at the beginning.
>
>
>Alan, we have not participated in that many CCWGs, period. The
>concept is still in its infancy and I see these regs as the wedge of
>an attempt to thwart this concept before it becomes too dangerous to
>established power.

There in fact have been a few - both with us and the ccNSO. But my
point was that a CCWG is likely to be born out of a common interest.
If there is none, then we need another vehicle. To be candid, I
fought hard to eliminate that rule, not because I felt we were likely
to need to invoke a multiple-charter group, but because I felt that
there was no real reason for it. In any specific case, if one or more
partners feels that a multi-charter would not work, they have it
within their power to simply refuse it at the time. But this was not
a battle that I won in that group.

Once it goes to the larger community of AC/SOs, perhaps the pendulum
will flip the other way. But I really don't think it is a major
roadblock regardless.

>  In fact, those who were around may recall that for the JAS group,
> we did agree on a single charter. Due to a clerical (honestly!)
> error, one clause was omitted from the version that the GNSO
> approved. When the charter came up to the ALAC, the ALAC decided to
> drop that clause as well, as it wasfelt that it was not
> sufficiently important to
>warrant delaying the entire process until it could go back to the
>GNSO for re-chartering (and we believed that the group WOULD look at
>that issue regardless of whether it  as in the charter). Other CCWGs
>such as DSSA all had a single charter agreed to by one mechanism or
>another ahead of time.
>
>
>
>This worked, and is an argument in favour of a status quo of flexibility.

100% agreed. That is my preference. My only argument to the contrary
is that as real life unfolds, I really don't think it will matter a whole lot.
>You will notice that the principles are silent on the issue of
>re-chartering part-way through a process, the situation where JAS blew up.
>
>
>
>If the proposed principles demand a single charter, then a
>post-creation divergence in charter would demand disbanding of the
>WG. This is IMO unacceptable.

I don't agree with the conclusion. Once a WG is born, there is no
words in the current principles that say that a single charter is
required for life. I do believe that some on the GNSO would like to
see that, and perhaps on Thursday, they will say so and get their
way. But for whatever it is worth, those on the DT were willing to
let sleeping dogs lie and not mention it as a principle.

JAS was born with a single charter and ended up life with two. If the
WG itself had refuse to work in that situation, or if the two
charters were really going in opposite directions, the outcome would
have been different.>
>If you recall the sequence of events there:
>
>
>I recall that ALAC did all the accommodation in an unsuccessful
>attempt to find a middle ground.
>
>
>- that was perhaps a bit awkward to work with, but the JAS WG was
>willing and things proceeded to the eventual VERY successful
>outcome, with the GNSO supporting all end-products equally, even the
>ones that they had not included in their charter.
>
>
>
>Evidence, please?
>
>The GNSO motion on the JAS final report did not endorse it at all,
>but simply acknowledged it and forwarded it to the Board.
>
>That hardly constituted "support", and obviously feel short of a
>GNSO request that the Board approve the JAS core component requests
>(such as fee reductions unconstrained by a fixed fund).

Based on the outcome we have today, my reading is that not objecting
is de facto acceptance if not throwing their arms around it and
hugging the report.>
>Another area that may attract discussion is about the rules that a
>CCWG will follow.
>
>
>Why does this need to be set in stone?
>
>Different problems call for different solutions, and constraining
>the process before it starts is worse than counter-productive.

Again we agree 100%. But for better or worse, the discussion has been
started. Not by you or I, but started nonetheless.Alan************************

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@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
************************

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.

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 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.
thanksavri
************************

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?

Best

Bill
************************

No disagreement from me in this respect. I fought
hard for a "where possible/practical" or
"generally" phrase to be added to the one-charter
issue. I did not win that one in the DT.

I do suspect that it is an edge case which
particularly applies when the desires are
generally compatible, but one groups wants a
superset of issues addressed (so I guess my
reference to the "far reaches of my imagination"
was overkill ;-) ). However, since this is just
the GNSO stake in the ground, if ALAC or others
feel the bit of wriggle-room is desired,
hopefully it can be put back in when that level
of discussion happens. Clearly it would be a LOT
better if the GNSO approves principals that do have the flexibility.Alan************************

First, thank you Bill for taking the time to bring this to the At-Large's
attention.

Second, I read the guidelines as an attempt to lay out 'aspirational'
principles, some of which tend to be overbearing.

Third, on principle, the ALAC must reject any framework espoused by this
proposal that undermines our by-law mandated role.  In this context any
notion of agreeing to rules that a) limit our ability to communicate up,
down, sideways or backwards b) constrain or hobble our ability to explore,
act or otherwise engage any party or constituency in furtherance of the
public interest must be summarily rejected.

Fourth, if the presumptive At-Large position varies widely from the GNSO
then the utility of a CWG is severely limited so we should recognize such
an eventuality and act accordingly.

So on balance of the facts as I know them and while I'm all for
collaborating, when it is clear this is the wrong way to go then let's just
carry on and recognize there will be no marriage of convenience.

- Carlton************************

Hi,

I mostly agree with this but do want to quibble, as is my want, with one of the points.

On 19 Jan 2012, at 10:40, Carlton Samuels wrote:

> First, thank you Bill for taking the time to bring this to the At-Large's
> attention.
>
> Second, I read the guidelines as an attempt to lay out 'aspirational'
> principles, some of which tend to be overbearing.
>
> Third, on principle, the ALAC must reject any framework espoused by this
> proposal that undermines our by-law mandated role.  In this context any
> notion of agreeing to rules that a) limit our ability to communicate up,
> down, sideways or backwards b) constrain or hobble our ability to explore,
> act or otherwise engage any party or constituency in furtherance of the
> public interest must be summarily rejected.
>
> Fourth, if the presumptive At-Large position varies widely from the GNSO
> then the utility of a CWG is severely limited so we should recognize such
> an eventuality and act accordingly.
>

I am not so sure about this.  Even if the two SOAC entities disagree, on some point or points, the exercise is still valuable as the points of disagreement can be discussed ad nauseum and documented in a final report.  Then each of the entities can go forth with the document doing as they see fit.

This is still better then them not knowing each other's POV.

> So on balance of the facts as I know them and while I'm all for
> collaborating, when it is clear this is the wrong way to go then let's just
> carry on and recognize there will be no marriage of convenience.

Not a marriage but perhaps a brief interlude.avri************************

On 19 January 2012 10:56, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:

> > Fourth, if the presumptive At-Large position varies widely from the GNSO
> > then the utility of a CWG is severely limited so we should recognize such
> > an eventuality and act accordingly.
> >
>
> I am not so sure about this.  Even if the two SOAC entities disagree, on
> some point or points, the exercise is still valuable as the points of
> disagreement can be discussed ad nauseum and documented in a final report.
>  Then each of the entities can go forth with the document doing as they see
> fit.
>

We have a template of that kind of outcome, in a sense, in what happened in
the Vertical Integration WG. While not IIRC a full CCWG it did have
significant At-Large participation.

To the extent that the VI WG could not agree, it reported as much and laid
the issues out for the Board to judge --  as the Board ultimately did.

IMO, having a VI-type split within ICANN's communities on a different issue
would not invalidate the purpose of bringing them togerher on that issue.
Consensus is always desirable, but its absence can't be interpreted as a
direction not to act. If nothing more is done in such circumstances than to
bring clarity to the points of divergence, that is itself quite useful to a
final arbiter. Then again, there could be agreement on sub-issues and maybe
even a partial closing of the gap. We'll never know until we try, but the
proposed GNSO guidelines would prevent that kind of thing from even
starting.- Evan************************

Hmmm . . .  I find it rather strange that one SO would issue,
unilaterally, draft "Principles for CWGs". That should be a matter for
the Board if it is controversial, or for Legal Counsel if it is not.

Also, if the results of a CWG have to go back into a PDP, and also
have to be endorsed by the "chartering" SOs/ACs, then I do wonder what
is the point of the exercise.

Finally, the last clause of these draft principles notwithstanding,
certain issues are rather urgent. The proposed resolutions do not
really reflect that fact.

Regards,

CW
************************

Hi

On the Council call yesterday I asked that discussion of this topic be held back to San Jose so we could have it face to face.  I believe that will happen on the Saturday.  Since Council meetings are open, I would encourage any ALACers who are interested and available to come along and share your perspectives with the Council so these can be taken into consideration before we vote on a motion Wednesday.

Again, on the unilateral imposition meme that seems to be developing, please do bear in mind that what is proposed here is that the Council adopt a negotiation position, not that this would be the end of the story.  The motion states, inter alia,

Resolved, that the GNSO Council hereby approves the Draft Principles for Cross-Community Working Groups for its own guidance and requests staff to disseminate them to the Chairs of the Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees asking them to provide input to the GNSO Council in 60 days on both the principles themselves and the route forward for community-wide adoption or development of a related set of principles for the operation of Cross-Community Working Groups

So I invite you to provide input at the front end, and later on as well, with an eye toward devising something that everyone is comfortable with.

Best,

Bill
************************

I am a bit confused by this statement and by similar ones made by others. I completely agree with the sentiment, but am unsure how it applies here.

The issue being discussed is what principles should govern (if indeed there should be any) how "Cross Constituency Working Groups" will be formed, run and report. In the worst case, if these rules are repugnant to At-Large, or will not satisfy our needs, then we will not likely enter into such groups (at least in the cases where there is this discontinuity). It does not say anything about any other working constructs that we may enter into, nor what we do with the results of a CCWG (or any other WG), nor what we do in other venues (including some future multi-party WGs that are not deemed to be "CCWG"s).

So how is it construed that these rules (if indeed they end up being used) can alter our Bylaw mandated role?

Bottom line is that just as we cannot force the GNSO to enter into a relationship that they find inappropriate, they similarly have no
ability to force us into a role that we do not want.Alan
************************

Here's the key recital with my emphases:

"Whereas, the GNSO Council desires to develop a GNSO agreed perspective
with regard to the role, function and method of conducting joint activities
for future projects that respects and preserves the recognized roles and
responsibilities assigned to each SO/AC under the ICANN Bylaws;

Read my comments.  Then read yours.  You will quickly see we say the exact
same thing, including covering all your 'it does not says'!  I just got to
the weeds by a different path. So here's it plain.

I confess ignorance of the extant GNSO 'house rules'. But from casual
observation of what goes on and from second hand information, it suggests
that a vocal minority from certain 'houses' could derail even the
publication of a majority view. I'm against that.

I take the classic definition of 'principles'.  But I know from experience
that sometimes principles actually subscribe to processes that enable their
expression. And the processes themselves could be troublesome.

This is where my caution comes in: we can agree on a principle but how it
plays out is another matter.  In this case, I am for unfettered
communications and our ability to act, in our judgment, unilaterally to
preserve the at-large's interest.

- Carlton
<end SNIP>