RE: [bc-gnso] GNSO Councilor statements on IRTP-B resolution

[Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Zahid, John, sitting in the room and watching the dialogue and the back and 
forth closely. Thanks so much, Zahid for your great intervention. 
I know that you have the full support of the ExComm members in the room, 
watching closely. 
It is a good lesson to us that the WG model does have  some warts, but we need 
to fix those. And as far as i recall, Council cannot change the policy 
recommendations: it can review [and should/determine if it is complete]; and 
based on that, approve, deny, or remand recommendations from a WG. 
If there are challenges in balanced participation in a WG, and Kristina 
mentioned an example of that..
but, the understanding of the WGs is that policy is developed at the WG, and 
that the Council reviews, determines it is complete, and fulsome or not, and 
approves, denies, or remands, with suggestions, I think. I do appreciate your 
clarity of the role of Council, and you were quite right in pointing out that 
while the outcome was acceptable [maybe frustrating but acceptable: e.g. 
delaying one element], in the initial discussion online it idid "feel' like a 
councilor might be proposing modifying a WG proposal. 
The take away I have from this is to have a discussion at the CSG level, with 
councilors and members from the CSG constituencies who have recent experience 
on WGs about what they think is working, or not working well in WGs.  
Personally, I long for the days of having to have at least assigned/accountable 
rep per constituency for each WG, even if additional participants are 
permitted. It is hard to prevent 'capture' in the present environment, however, 
I am cognizant that having more people often provides more information. 
Steve, can I ask that you advice on the list of BC members who have experience 
in the present WGs. What I am interested in our understanding is if across the 
CSG that we all believe that improvements are needed for the WG process. 
changing the PDP process is coming up -- this is the time to look hard at the 
WG procedures and ask ourselves if the procedures are adequate.
Recruiting members to participate in WGs is very challenging, since we ask 
members to do a lot of work [a LOT of work]. I so much appreciate all the work 
that our members are doing on the various WGs, including those WGs related to 
Organizational stuff. 
Thanks again, Zahid

From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
Steve DelBianco
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 12:33 AM
To: 'bc-GNSO@xxxxxxxxx GNSO list'
Subject: [bc-gnso] GNSO Councilor statements on IRTP-B resolution Council 
unanimously passed a resolution on IRTB  (including deferred consideration of 
two items).   Congratulations to BC members Mikey O'Connor, Chris Chaplow, and 
Berry Cobb.  Zahid Jamil and others also recognized importance of respecting 
the product and process of Working Groups: JEFF NEUMAN:   I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE 
THE REQUEST OF ICANN STAFF TO FOLLOW SOME OF THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS SO WHEN 
THEY'RE DRAFTING THEIR FINAL REPORT THAT GOES TO THE BOARD, IF THAT WOULD BE 
SOMETHING THAT THE COUNCIL OR, MORE IMPORTANTLY, THE ACTUAL WORKING GROUP COULD 
SEE SO THEY CAN BLESS THAT BEFORE YOUR REPORT -- YOUR STAFF REPORT GOES TO THE 
BOARD. IN THE INTEREST OF OPENNESS AND TRANSPARENCY, IF YOU COULD ACTUALLY RUN 
IT BY THAT GROUP.AGAIN, THAT IS A RECOMMENDATION OF THAT GROUP, AND I'D LIKE TO 
SEE, TO THE EXTENT WE CAN DO IT, THAT FOLLOWED NOW SO THAT WOULD BE A GOOD 
THING IF THAT COULD HAPPEN. I. THANKS, JEFF. ZAHID. >>ZAHID JAMIL: THANK YOU. 
FIRST OF ALL, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SAY THAT IT IS FANTASTIC THAT, YOU KNOW, WE 
HAVE GOT A CONSENSUS POLICY HERE AND EVERYBODY IS BEING SUPPORTING IT, 
INCLUDING US IN THE BUSINESS CONSTITUENCY. HOWEVER I HAVE BEEN ENCOURAGED AND 
URGED BY CERTAIN MEMBERS OF MY CONSTITUENCY WHO WERE ACTUALLY ACTIVELY PART OF 
THE WORKING GROUP HERE TO MAKE SOME SORT OF STATEMENT WITH REGARD TO THE 
CHALLENGES THAT ARE NOW FACED WITH THE NEW STRUCTURE OF THE GNSO.THE EVENTS OR 
CERTAIN DISCUSSIONS ONLINE SORT OF UNDERSCORE THE IMPORTANCE OF ENSURING THAT 
IN THIS NEW MODEL, CONSTITUENCIES AND STAKEHOLDER GROUPS KEEP A VERY CAREFUL 
HAWKEYE, IF NECESSARY, ON WORK AND DEVELOPMENTS IN THE DRAFTING TEAMS AND THE 
WORKING GROUPS, SO THAT WE CAN AVOID SITUATIONS WHERE POLICY MANAGERS MAY HAVE 
TO, AT TIMES, TINKER OR CHANGE CERTAIN DECISIONS OR TAKE DECISIONS CONTRARY, 
SOMETIMES, TO WHAT THE WORKING GROUPS COME UP WITH, ESPECIALLY IN THIS 
BOTTOM-UP POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS, SUCH AS WE'VE SEEN IN THE RAA AND NOW THE 
POSSIBLY -- EVEN THOUGH I'M GLAD TO SEE THAT WE'VE JUST DEFERRED IT -- IN THIS 
RESOLUTION. AND IF WE DON'T, WE RUN THE RISK OF DISINCENTIVIZING VOLUNTEERS WHO 
SPEND HEARSE OF HOURS OF THEIR PRECIOUS TIME WORKING ON THESE EFFORTS, SO I'M 
GLAD THAT IN THIS RESOLUTION WHAT WE'VE DONE IS AT LEAST JUST DEFERRED SOME OF 
THE -- COUPLE OF MOTIONS THERE AND I JUST WANTED TO AGAIN SAY THAT IT IS 
FANTASTIC TO SEE THAT, YOU KNOW, THE HARD WORK OF THE WORKING GROUP HAS COME TO 
FRUITION, BUT I'D JUST LIKE TO SORT OF AGAIN UNDERSCORE THE IMPORTANCE OF US 
KEEPING A CAREFUL EYE ON THE WORK TEAM'S WORK. >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: THANKS, 
ZAHID. I DON'T WANT TO SAY TOO MUCH, BUT I JUST -- I DO -- I MEAN, THE MENTAL 
IS VERY CLEAR. IN THIS INSTANCE, I ACTUALLY FAIL TO SEE WHY THE MESSAGE IS 
NECESSARY. I THINK AS TIM EXPLAINED EARLIER, THERE HAS BEEN NO ATTEMPT BY THE 
COUNCIL TO CHANGE ANYTHING THAT HAS COME UP FROM THE WORKING GROUP. IT'S JUST 
WE'RE GIVING OURSELVES TIME TO CONSIDER DIFFERENT THINGS IN DIFFERENT WAYS.BUT 
I KNOW JEFF WANTS TO SPEAK TO THIS, AND THEN I'LL PASS IT BACK TO YOU. >>JEFF 
NEUMAN: YEAH. I MEAN, I -- YOU'VE PRETTY MUCH SAID A LOT OF WHAT I WAS GOING TO 
SAY IN THIS INSTANCE I DON'T THINK WE'VE REWRITTEN ANYTHING, AND I THINK YOU'RE 
RIGHT. IF THERE IS SOMETHING THAT THE GNSO COUNCIL DISAGREES WITH, PROBABLY IT 
SHOULD GO BACK TO THE WORKING GROUP AND WE SHOULD NOT BE SUBSTITUTING OUR OWN 
OPINION FOR THAT OF THE WORKING GROUP THAT'S PUT IN A LOT OF EXTRA TIME ON 
THESE ISSUES.AND SO I GUESS I AGREE WITH THAT SENTIMENT AND I THINK IN THIS 
CASE, I THINK WE'VE DONE THE RIGHT THING. >>ZAHID JAMIL: THANKS. AS I SAID IN 
THE CLOSING AND ALSO IN THE BEGINNING, I'M GLAD TO SEE THAT THERE WAS A 
DEFERRAL HERE, BECAUSE THERE WAS DISCUSSION OF DOING SOMETHING OTHERWISE. IT'S 
IMPORTANT THAT I POINT OUT THAT THE WORKING GROUP, SOME OF THE MEMBERS WERE 
FEELING A LITTLE CONCERNED ABOUT CERTAIN THINGS THAT MIGHT HAVE HAPPENED, SO 
THAT IS SOME OF THE CONCERN. I WANTED TO ALLAY SOME OF THOSE FEARS AND I THINK 
THE COUNCIL HAS DONE THE RIGHT THING BY DEFERRING AND NOT CHANGING ANYTHING 
THERE, BUT IT'S IMPORTANT TO JUST KEEP AN EYE ON THE FACT THAT SOMETIMES WHEN 
THINGS ARE BEING DONE AT THE WORKING GROUP LEVEL, BY THE TIME THEY GET TO THE 
COUNCIL, CONSTITUENCIES MAY HAVE, YOU KNOW, SOMETIMES NOT REALIZED WHAT'S 
HAPPENING THERE, AND IT'S IMPORTANT TO KEEP AN EYE ON IT AND JUST THAT WAS THE 
STATEMENT I WANTED TO MAKE. BUT I AGREE THAT THE COUNCIL HAS TAKEN THE RIGHT 
DECISION BY NOT CHANGING THE BOTTOM-UP PROCESS AND INSTEAD JUST SAID OKAY, 
WE'RE DEFERRING THIS. THANKS. >>TIM RUIZ: YEAH. I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT THAT 
WHAT WE'VE DONE TODAY WAS TO UNANIMOUSLY ACCEPT EVERY CONSENSUS POLICY 
RECOMMENDATION MADE BY THIS WORKING GROUP, SO I DON'T WANT TO -- DON'T WANT US 
TO -- THAT TO BE OVERSHADOWED AND THE WORKING GROUP SHOULD BE, AGAIN, APPLAUDED 
AND THANKED FOR THEIR HARD WORK AND THE WAY THAT THEY'VE PROCEEDED, SO THAT WE 
HAVE NO QUESTION ABOUT THE CONSENSUS THAT EXISTED IN THESE POLICIES. >>JONATHAN 
ROBINSON: YEAH. AND I HOPE THIS IS -- THIS IS AT THE RISK OF OVER-EGGING THE 
SITUATION BUT TO ME WHAT THIS UNDERLINES AND EMPHASIZES THE PARTNERS OF THE 
WORKING GROUPS AND SENDS A VERY CLEAR MESSAGE OUT THAT IF YOU WANT TO INFLUENCE 
THE POLICY, GET INVOLVED IN THE WORKING GROUPS AND DO THAT AND WE WILL TAKE 
THAT VERY SERIOUSLY.