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...
I believe that the sentence that Tim is referring to is
"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."
I do not claim to speak for Cheryl (but I have copied here on this
note), but I will give my views. We tend to use the same words but
with many different meanings in ICANN. There is no doubt that the
Bylaws give the GNSO Council full and sole control of the gTLD Policy
Development Process. The PDP is a very specific process and its
outcomes are subject to very special Board treatment. With the
current working group model that still gives others (both affiliated
with AC/SOa or not) the ability to participate.
But in my mind, the GNSO is not the only part of ICANN which has an
interest in the more general gTLD issues and the two recent working
group are examples. As indicated in the CCT report recently approved
by the GNSO Council, cooperation with other ACs and SOs is desirable.
I note that Cheryl did not capitalize Policy or Processes and I think
clearly meant the terms in their most general sense.
Despite the general Board rejection of the products of the two recent
cross-constituency WGs, I would like to think that we need to
continue to use such models when and where it seems to be
advantageous. The alternative to the direction indicated by the
sentence is that the GNSO or the GNSO Council refuse to participate
in activities with the other groups, or that the other groups not be
allowed to undertake any gTLD-related discussions on their own unless
"led" by the GNSO. I don't think that either would be a desirable way forward.
I do not see any of this diluting the role of the GNSO and GNSO
Council. It may make things more complex at times, but if that is the
price to pay for good outcomes, I think it may be a worthwhile trade-off.
At 06/10/2010 11:18 AM, Tim Ruiz wrote:
Well Bill, if that was all it was about that might be true. But the
second sentence of the first paragraph of the excerpt clearly indicates
a bigger picture goal. So perhaps how we proceed all depends on how we
do it and what it involves. Getting more info on the Board's decisions
is one thing, extending it beyond that is another.