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...

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Yes, 2 for me IF we are requesting more detail in regards to ALL of the
decisions and not MAPO specifically. If the intent is the latter, or we
are pushed to agree to include anything else, then my preference would
be 3, no request at all.


Tim

> -------- Original Message --------
> 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...
> From: William Drake <william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Thu, October 07, 2010 6:07 am
> To: Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx, langdonorr@xxxxxxxxx,
> council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 
> Hi Tim
> 
> Thanks for laying this out.  I understand your general concern and doubt 
> anyone here would want out of band CWGs to become the norm.  But there may be 
> times when cross-community dialogue is needed to move forward, and many folks 
> thought that was the case with MAPO.  We had the GAC belatedly declaring it 
> couldn't live with a GNSO-agreed process and expressing interest in talking 
> it through with us, and they were laterally already having such a discussion 
> with ALAC.  It's not obvious that insisting on a GNSO-only response would 
> have played well in that context, or for that matter that it'd have 
> ultimately been as productive as the CWG was (unless you feel the 
> recommendations are worse than the status quo ante?).
> 
> In any event, presumably the choices are 1) a joint request for information 
> that would help us to understand the board's resolution, 2) a GNSO request 
> for the same, or 3) no request.  My preference would be for 1, do I 
> understand yours to be 2?  Would be good to hear from others�
> 
> Best,
> 
> Bill
> 
> 
> 
> On Oct 6, 2010, at 9:27 PM, Tim Ruiz wrote:
> 
> > The new gTLD issues are related to GNSO specific policy. I do not
> > believe it was appropriate for a CWG to self form to deal with what it
> > chose to call an implementation issue any more than it was for the Board
> > to do the same thing with the IRT. At least with the latter the Board
> > eventually sent it back to where it should have been dealt with in the
> > first place, the GNSO. So I was pleased to see the Board response to the
> > policy changes proposed by the MAPO CWG. 
> > 
> > If we continue down a path of allowing and even supporting such out of
> > band efforts, then eventually such out of band CWGs will become the norm
> > and used by SGs, ACs, etc. to get their pet issues on the table without
> > going through the accepted processes. Setting policy in that manner is
> > not provided for anywhere in ICANN's bylaws, and I think for good
> > reason.
> > 
> > As Allen points out, the GNSO policy development process allows for
> > participation of all in the community in its WGs. The current CWG
> > efforts have not been to deal with some etherial, non-policy related
> > issues. They are being used to attempt to take a short cut around the
> > established GNSO proceses. IMHO, both the ALAC and the GAC are no longer
> > content with having an Advisory role within the community, and perhaps
> > they never were, but that's where we are at. If that is going to change
> > I would like it to be a frank, open, and direct discussion and not as a
> > result of an unintended imprimatur by the GNSO.
> > 
> > If we stick solely to what Bill has suggested in regards to this recent
> > ALAC request, that may be fine in this instance, but I am concerned
> > about the tone and implications of the entire message from them and
> > would not want to imply that we agree with any other part of it. And as
> > I said earlier, I think some consideration should be given to whether
> > separate inquiries would be better. 
> > 
> > Tim
> > 
> > > -------- Original Message --------
> > > 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...
> > > From: Alan Greenberg 
> > > Date: Wed, October 06, 2010 11:49 am
> > > To: 
> > > Cc: Cheryl Langdon-Orr 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 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.
> > > 
> > > Alan
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 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. 
> > > 
> > > Tim
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> ***********************************************************
> William J. Drake
> Senior Associate
> Centre for International Governance
> Graduate Institute of International and
>  Development Studies
> Geneva, Switzerland
> william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html
> www.linkedin.com/in/williamjdrake
> ***********************************************************