Re: [council] Outreach document background

[Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>]

Bill,

Your points are well taken. This is why I was careful in my previous email to 
explain that my responses were generic in nature, and not focused on this 
specific issue.

On that issue however, I do not read John's motion as the Council wanting to 
redo the work itself. The motion asks for staff input, and that would then be 
pushed back to the group.

That is my understanding of the Council being within its role to decide that a 
specific group's work is not ready yet, and needs to be looked at again.

And let's not forget this is just a motion at this stage. The Council has not 
yet voted on whether it agrees with the BC on this, or whether it doesn't.

So all in all, I think what is happening here is exactly what should happen. I 
understand the frustration those in the group may feel, but I do want to make 
sure that we defend the Council's prerogative to look at work submitted to it 
and decide it is not quite ready. Whatever the issue.

That is all I was saying.

Thanks,

Stéphane



Le 13 déc. 2011 à 15:41, William Drake a écrit :

> HI Stéphane
> 
> Well, this is getting interesting…convoluted, but interesting….
> 
> Since you've waded in a couple times on a personal basis and Olga's not here 
> to reply, let me add my own two cents in the hope that we stimulate some 
> further list discussion in advance of the vote Thursday.  All this has 
> happened pretty quickly without a full airing, and it'd be better to act 
> based on full and symmetric information.
> 
> On Dec 13, 2011, at 2:01 PM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
> 
>> [snip]
>> 
>> I would also like to comment on your email. I do not believe that when the 
>> Council does not immediately rubber stamp a piece of work done by a group, 
>> it is disrespecting the work of that group.
>> 
>> In fact, I would go as far as to say that I believe suggesting this, is 
>> disrespecting the Council.
> 
> I did not read Olga's message as expecting a rubber stamp, nor do I think her 
> expressing disappointment is disrespectful to the council.  It is quite 
> natural that someone who devoted a lot of energy for a couple years to 
> running a WT that'd been mandated as she detailed, that operated in an open 
> manner with representation from all corners of our universe, and that 
> continually refined its text based on our feedback, would be surprised to 
> have it suddenly go down in flames, particularly without any clear 
> explanation of its purported deficiencies.  I doubt that other chairs of WGs 
> WTs etc would be any less disappointed if placed in similar circumstances.
>> 
>> The Council is not a letterbox. It has a responsibility to look at the work 
>> produced and say whether it approves it or not.
>> 
>> What the Council must not do is rework the end product itself. But what it 
>> should do is look at the work and evaluate it again, even after it has 
>> already been evaluated by the group producing it in the first place.
> 
> Here I'm puzzled.  Reworking is precisely what's happened here.  There was a 
> motion to charter a body that would perform a set of agreed functions.  Many 
> councilors wanted a second deferral and then abstained on the vote because 
> they said people should have more time to think about it.  No focused 
> dialogue or alternative text ensured until a motion was submitted on the last 
> day, by which time it was impossible for proponents of the charter to 
> organize an alternative motion.  The motion does not charter said body, just 
> pulls out one of its functions and asks staff to do it rather than have a 
> multistakeholder collaborative endeavor per the charter.  In what sense is 
> that not a rather substantial "rework"?
>> 
>> This two-level approval process is built into our PDP to ensure that the 
>> work that the GNSO ends up approving is truly representative of community 
>> consensus (and I won't go into the different levels of consensus as we 
>> define them, as that is not important here).
>> 
>> So I am not comfortable buying into the "the C and SGs were represented on 
>> the WG and therefore there should not be disagreement now" argument. First 
>> of all, because different people, even from the same constituency, have 
>> different opinions.
> 
> SGs can of course revise their views, I don't think she's arguing with that 
> principle.  At the same time though, one would like to think that SG reps to 
> a team do have some communication with their peers and if the latter has 
> fundamental problems—e.g. a desire to toss out the entire enterprise—some 
> early warning would be given.
> 
>> And also because some WG reps may not have the time to adequately look at 
>> the work (unfortunate, I know, but a fact of life nonetheless) and that same 
>> constituency's Council rep may spot something that went previously unnoticed.
> 
> This went on for @ two years, no?  The Charter is ten pages.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Bill