RE: [council] FW: Action item on me from our teleconf yesterday regarding the recent Board Resolutions from Trondheim, reflecting on reports from various WG's including JAS and Rec6 CWG...

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

What do you think is being replaced Tim?  What responsibility do you think 
would be shirked?

 

Chuck

 

From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2010 1:12 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck
Cc: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [council] FW: Action item on me from our teleconf yesterday 
regarding the recent Board Resolutions from Trondheim, reflecting on reports 
from various WG's including JAS and Rec6 CWG...

 

This just further entrenches my concerns that that we have set off an
effort to diminsh the GNSO's role within ICANN policy making (and/or
increase that of the ACs beyond what was envisioned in privatizing this
medium). So I do not support Cheryl's suggestion given that she clearly
includes that as part of the goal for calling this effort together.

We should be very concerned and cautious about shirking our
responsibility as managers of policy development for the generic name
space by allowing so-called "community working groups" or "cross
community" initiatives to replace GNSO policy processes. 

Tim

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [council] FW: Action item on me from our teleconf yesterday
> regarding the recent Board Resolutions from Trondheim, reflecting on
> reports from various WG's including JAS and Rec6 CWG...
> From: "Gomes, Chuck" 
> Date: Thu, September 30, 2010 8:07 am
> To: "Council GNSO" 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please note the following email from Cheryl Langdon-Orr, ALAC
> Chair, that was sent to me along with Heather Dryden and Frank March of the 
> GAC. 
> Noting that the references to the GNSO Council meeting should be corrected to 
> 7
> October (not 8 October as stated in Cheryl’s message), under agenda ‘Item
> 7: New gTLD Board Resolutions from Board Retreat’ I would like to
> request direction from the GNSO Council regarding how I should respond. 
> In particular, please note the following excerpts from Cheryl’s message:
> 
>  
> 
> “My proposal to GNSO and GAC is that with the
> knowledge of how our AC is planning to proceed and brief outline on some of 
> the
> matters we wish to address,  would GNSO and/or GAC  like to
> collaborate and proceed  in these inquiries and analysis as a
> joint activity?  It is our belief
> that particularly where we were jointly operating as Chartering
> Organisations or in Cross Community mode this would be
> quite advantageous and if GNSO and/or GAC  do wish to do so the
> ALAC and I look forward to the opportunity to continue to build better and 
> more
> robust models for multi-stakeholderism and bottom up consensus built
> policy processes in ICANN.”
> 
>  
> 
> “. . . ALAC will be writing to the Board
> and Senior staff involved, to requesting some information and
> materials that we trust will help us (as well as the WG participants
> and wider ICANN Community) the rational to the resolutions of the
> Board regarding the Reports provided, as well as some information as to depth 
> and
> time taken in deliberation of the recommendations  from the community
> (specifically the Consensus ones, but also those with Strong Support) by the
> Board and for any information and/or explanation we can be given to assist our
> understanding in the decisions outlined in those resolutions, we will also be
> requesting access to and prompt delivery of the Board briefing
> materials and staff briefings on these substantial reports,  (the Board
> Books) under the previously announced intentions and guidelines for
> these publications, (since Brussels)  noting that  at this stage the
> community has not had access to the Aug meetings materials  and if a
> similar delay was seen with this retreat / meeting we would still be 
> requesting
> information, explanation and assistance towards our understanding as we go
> into the Catagena meeting.  We have also been requested to write to the
> ATRT with these concerns and with copy of the requests we make.”
> 
>  
> 
> Please forward this request to your respective SGs and
> constituencies as soon as possible and be prepared to discuss this on 7
> October.
> 
>  
> 
> Thanks, Chuck
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> From: Cheryl Langdon-Orr
> [mailto:langdonorr@xxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2010 3:15 AM
> To: Gomes, Chuck; Heather.Dryden@xxxxxxxx; Frank March
> Cc: alac-excom@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Action item on me from our teleconf yesterday regarding the
> recent Board Resolutions from Trondheim, reflecting on reports from various
> WG's including JAS and Rec6 CWG...
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> As discussed
>  in our brief chat yesterday,  the ALAC  at its meeting on the
> 28th  discussed  several matters and concerns to our
> community  and the At-Large participants in several of the recent WG
> activities (particularly the WG focussed on VI, JAS and Rec6CWG) arising out 
> of
> the resolutions published recently from the Board Retreat at Trondheim,
> Norway see http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-25sep10-en.htm 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The ALAC meeting was joined by Regional (RALO)
> leadership, At-Large Liaisons to ICANN SO's and other AC's and participants to
> the aforementioned  WG's  which as you know range from the
> 'traditional SO / GNSO Chartered WG (VI)  through the Joint
> Chartering Organisation of JAS-WG between GNSO and ALAC to the tripartite or 
> multi SOAC Cross Community WG
> for Rec6 that was jointly managed under Terms of Reference from GNSO, GAC and
> ALAC;  the ALAC had formally appointed  a Liaison from us as a joint
> CO to both the JAS and Rec6CWG (operating under
> role definitions and mechanisms from the current near final draft
>  GNSO WG guidelines Section 2.2 page 11 of   GNSO
> Working Group Guidelines - clean - updated 20 May 2010.doc ) and both these 
> Liaisons
> addressed  serious concerns raised by their respective WG's since the
> Board resolutions have been published and the ALAC agreed that "Cheryl
> and ExCom to follow up on possibility of executive of two chartering
> organizations (GNSO and ALAC) speaking to Chuck about concerns re Board's
> reaction to JAS WG. Similar concerns regarding the response to the report from
> the Rec6CWG, will be raised by Cheryl in a teleconference between the CO's and
> Co-Chairs of that WG and again follow through on this will be actioned either
> by the ALAC  or in any joint reaction from GNSO, GAC and ALAC that
>  might occur  (this will be followed though on either jointly with
> other issues or separately)." from AI's from ALAC meeting of 28
> Sept. https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?action_items_28_september_2010_en  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am writing to you with this information and the
> following proposal so that the GAC and GNSO can consider  what next steps
> they might wish to take jointly or severally with that which the ALAC intends
> to do.  As I also mentioned in our call the GNSO Liaison to the Joint
> JAS-WG is expected to bring this matter forward at the GNSO meeting of the 8th
> of October and knowledge of ALAC deliberations and AI's on this matter may be
> of some interest or use to the GNSO Councils deliberations on this JAS 
> specific
> matter as well as whatever might be raised  regarding Rec6CWG.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On behalf of the At-Large Community involved
> and/or interested in these WG activities conducted since Nairobi and
>  deadlined to feed into the Board Retreat  where they were
> considering the new
> gTLD program Application Guidelines etc.,  ALAC will
> be writing to the Board and Senior staff involved, to requesting some
> information and materials that we trust will help us (as well as the WG
> participants and wider ICANN Community) the rational to the
> resolutions of the Board regarding the Reports provided, as well as some
> information as to depth and time taken in deliberation of the recommendations
>  from the community (specifically the Consensus ones, but also those with
> Strong Support) by the Board and for any information and/or explanation we can
> be given to assist our understanding in the decisions outlined in those
> resolutions, we will also be requesting access to
> and prompt delivery of the Board briefing materials and staff
> briefings on these substantial reports,  (the Board Books) under the
> previously announced intentions and guidelines for these
> publications, (since Brussels)  noting that  at this stage the
> community has not had access to the Aug meetings materials  and if a
> similar delay was seen with this retreat / meeting we would still be 
> requesting
> information, explanation and assistance towards our understanding as we go
> into the Catagena meeting.  We have also been requested to write to the
> ATRT with these concerns and with copy of the requests we make.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is concern in our community that the briefings and
> staff advice given to the Board may not have done justice to the degree of
> information  and the specifics of the various recommendations in
> these reports,  nor that sufficient time or debate was allocated
> to them and we will be seeking assurances and information to disprove or 
> otherwise
> these fears.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My proposal to GNSO and GAC  is that with the knowledge
> of how our AC is planning to proceed and brief outline on some of the matters
> we wish to address,  would GNSO and/or GAC  like to collaborate and
> proceed  in these inquiries and analysis as a joint activity?
>  It is our belief that particularly where we were jointly
> operating as Chartering Organisations  or in Cross Community mode this
> would be quite advantageous and if GNSO and/or GAC  do wish to
> do so the ALAC and I look forward to the opportunity to continue to build
> better and more robust models for multi-stakeholderism and bottom up
> consensus built policy processes in ICANN.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuck I trust this missive is timely enough for it
> to be of some use to the GNSO Council meeting on the 8th and
> Heather recognizing that the GAC does not have
> an intersession model that matches the frequency of ALAC and GNSO
> Council meeting do let me know if there is anything I can do to assist any
> discussion and deliberations your AC is making on these matters and note also
> that as ALAC works with all of At-Large and at-large, we would value
> any individual or  partial/subset interactions and interventions
> from your Members  and Constituencies, if you as SO and AC are unable to
> join us in cross community collaboration on this...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I look forward to your Council and AC reactions to this
> proposals and towards ALAC and A-Large working with you in any way deemed most
> suitable and effective on this issue in the near future.  Please note that
>  by our mid month ExCom meeting (held in the week of Oct 11 TBC)
>  where we next review our AI's I would like to have your feedback,
> guidance and suggestions on how you wish to proceed. Naturally as leadership
> and key representation in the ICANN Community we can I believe work more 
> effectively and successfully in
> concert and collaboration  rather than by divided effort on this
> and many other matters, and I hope your structures might see it that was as
> well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kindest regards,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO)
> 
> 
> 
> Chair of ALAC 2007- 2010
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>