[council] Re: [ccsg-chairs] Suspending list

["Mary Wong" <Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi again, and just to be clear - I'm not opposed to a mailing list in
principle, I was just concerned at how it would operate and whether it
would lead to a proliferation of mailing lists that take the place of
more open discussions.
 
I'm fully supportive of there being better and more regular channels of
communication between and among the Council and the various
SGs/Constituencies. I don't see that as in any way threatening either
the management function of the Council or the role of Councilors as
representatives of their various SGs/Cs, but rather view it all as
complementary.
 
I wasn't sure a mailing list is absolutely necessary if - and this
could be a big "if" sometimes - the Council Chair, Vice-Chairs, the
respective Chairs of each SG/C and each Councilor regularly make it a
point to communicate with one another over matters of mutual interest
and efficiency, provided that (1) such communications do not become
replacements for full, open policy discussion within the Council/GNSO
framework; and (2) any decisions agreed upon between the Council
Chair/Vice-Chairs and SG/C Chairs are duly reported and, if necessary,
questioned by the Council (to whom the Chair/Vice-Chairs are accountable
in those roles). Such a list should also preferably be open-archived.
 
However, it may be that a mailing list is the most effective and
efficient way to achieve that kind of regular
cross-SG/Council/Constituency communication. If so, then all I ask is
that the provisos I mentioned are borne in mind.
 
Cheers
Mary 

 
Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law
Chair, Graduate IP Programs
UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH
03301USAEmail: mary.wong@xxxxxxx.eduPhone: 1-603-513-5143Webpage:
http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.phpSelected writings available on
the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at:
http://ssrn.com/author=437584>>> 


From: Stéphane Van Gelder<stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
To:Rosemary Sinclair <Rosemary.Sinclair@xxxxxxxxxxx>
CC:"Metalitz, Steven" <met@xxxxxxx>, <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Avri
Doria" <avri@xxxxxxx>, <ncsg-ec@xxxxxx>, "NCSG-Policy"
<ncsg-policy@xxxxxx>
Date: 1/20/2011 11:08 AM
Subject: [council] Re: [ccsg-chairs] Suspending list

Rosemary,

I agree with all the points you've made.

To your more general point on the dangers of seeing the GNSO isolate
itself from the rest of the community. That is something that I think we
should always watch out for, on everything we do. I actually think it is
a crucial point for us at the moment, because the need for
cross-community interaction is, as you say, underscored in the AoC.
However, as recent CWGs have shown, I also think this needs to be done
in a careful and structured way. That is why I think Wolf's approach to
the proposed SO and AC Chairs meeting with Rod before SF is probably the
one that makes most sense to the GNSO at this time (please see separate
email for that contact).

To the mailing list, and also taking on board Bill and Wolf's comments,
I felt comfortable suspending the list because it can be recreated at
any time. I don't think it matters if the list is started now or in a
couple of days' time. So as it was obvious that some on the Council were
against it, I felt it best to suspend for now and let the discussion
develop. We now have as many for as we have against. So let's give
others time to chime in and then see where we want to go.

Thanks,

Stéphane

Le 20 janv. 2011 à 04:28, Rosemary Sinclair a écrit :

> Hi Stephane
> 
> I'm not sure we've allowed enough time for people to properly
consider this idea and reflect on other views
> 
> I got the first email on 19th Jan at 4.31am my time (Sydney) and then
the suspend list email a little over 24 hours later
> 
> With a quite a lot going on with work and otherwise I was not able to
express a view within the 24 hours - my apologies for that.
> 
> NCSG I think is a good example where (at the moment) our SG Chair SG
Policy Chair are not on Council and we have practical difficulty keeping
up with the task of ensuring full communication of Council matters so
that our SG as a whole can make an informed and constructive
contribution to GNSO deliberations.
> 
> So I support the suggested list. 
> 
> Individuals can make their own decision about how closely they need
to follow the list..and perhaps not at all.
> 
> In a very general sense, it seems to me there is a danger that the
increasing specificity of GNSO focus and narrowing of scope will come at
the cost of strategic effectiveness for GNSO in ICANN as a whole. 
> 
> The overarching context provided by the Affirmation of Commitments
and the agreed Strategy Plan suggest a preference for open, transparent
and engaged communication between GNSO stakeholders and across the ICANN
community.
> 
> I thought your suggestion was a practical and positive contribution
to open dialogue and I am truly sorry I was not able to express this
view within the limited (as it turned out) timeframe available.
> 
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Rosemary 
> 
> 
> 
> Rosemary Sinclair
> Managing Director, ATUG
> Chairman, INTUG
> T: +61 2 94958901  F: +61 2 94193889
> M: +61 413734490 
> Email: rosemary.sinclair@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Skype: rasinclair
> 
> Please visit the ATUG website for Updates and Information
www.atug.com.au 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ccsg-chairs@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-ccsg-chairs@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder
> Sent: Thursday, 20 January 2011 12:01 PM
> To: Metalitz, Steven
> Cc: ccsg-chairs@xxxxxxxxx; Rosette, Kristina; Taylor, David
> Subject: SPAM-LOW: Re: [ccsg-chairs] Suspending list
> 
> 
> Steve,
> 
> That is correct. Kristina also said she was never for nor against.
There has been no other reactions so far.
> 
> I am disappointed by the reactions that we have had, but there's
really very little I can do if those reactions are the only ones that we
get.
> 
> So if the people on this group have a different opinion, then once
again I suggest discussing that with your respective Council reps to get
that position across.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Stéphane
> 
> Le 19 janv. 2011 à 19:40, Metalitz, Steven a écrit :
> 
>> 
>> Stephane, 
>> 
>> I don't follow that list, but from what I see from looking at the
archive just now, the negative reactions are solely from your fellow
Registrar SG representatives.  Is that correct or did I miss something? 

>> 
>> Steve 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-ccsg-chairs@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-ccsg-chairs@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 1:10 PM
>> To: ccsg-chairs@xxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: [ccsg-chairs] Suspending list
>> 
>> 
>> Dear C and SG Chairs,
>> 
>> I'm sure you all follow the Council list and are therefore aware of
the discussion about this list on there.
>> 
>> The reactions so far from the Council are against this list.
>> 
>> To my great regret, I am therefore asking Glen to suspend it.
>> 
>> If you do not agree with this decision, please work through your
Council reps to make that position known.
>> 
>> Thanks for your understanding.
>> 
>> Stéphane
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> 





As of August 30, 2010, Franklin Pierce Law Center has affiliated with
the University of New Hampshire and is now known as the University of
New Hampshire School of Law. Please note that all email addresses have
changed and now follow the convention: firstname.lastname@xxxxxxxxxxx.
For more information on the University of New Hampshire School of Law,
please visit law.unh.edu