Re: [gnso-ccwg-dt] FW: [council] Cross community working groups

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

Jeff,

I'm not clear on your last point. Surely that is a risk with any group, be it a 
CWG, the GNSO Council, or whatever. If people are speaking as individuals but 
not saying so, then their views may be understood to be the views of the groups 
they represent.

So I don't see why it should be a requirement for CWG participation that people 
only act as individuals. It should be a requirement that people clearly state 
their affiliation and on whose behalf they are speaking when they do speak. But 
I believe that is a requirement anyway for any group.

I think that CWGs actually get value from having group representatives 
participate. For example, if the RrSG decides to be represented by me on a 
particular CWG, why should that not be allowed?

Thanks,

Stéphane



Le 3 mars 2011 à 14:48, Neuman, Jeff a écrit :

> Here are a couple of principals that I have been thinking about with respect 
> to Cross Working Groups:
>  
> 1.  With respect to CWGs, I would like to point to the DSSA- WG charter 
> (http://www.ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/dssa-draft-charter-12nov10-en.pdf) 
> as a model which makes it clear that following the completion of a final 
> report, they shall be submitted to the respective SOs and ACs which shall 
> discuss the Final Report and may adopt the Final Report according to their 
> own rules and procedures.
>  
> 2.  In addition, we need to be clear that CWGs are not part of the GNSO 
> Policy Development Process as set forth in Annex A to the Bylaws and 
> therefore cannot be used as the basis for the development of Consensus 
> Policies which are binding on the contracted parties.  More specifically, for 
> items within the so-called “picket fence”, such items must go through a 
> formal GNSO PDP in order to be considered as Consensus Policies even if such 
> policies have been vetted through a CWG.
>  
> 3.  With respect to CWGs, it should be made clear that many members may only 
> be participating as individuals and are not speaking on behalf of their 
> company/entity/organization, nor are the speaking on behalf of their 
> constituency/stakeholder group, advisory committee or SO.  Therefore, no one 
> should interpret any of the statements of a CWG to have the support of their 
> respective communities absent an express endorsement by those communities.  
> If a CWG were to speak directly with the ICANN Board or any other external 
> party, this point should be clearly made.
>  
> Just to explain from a personal perspective, when I serve on any working 
> group I am doing so as an individual and am not representing the views of 
> Neustar (my employer), the Registries Stakeholder Group (my SG), or the GNSO 
> (my Supporting Organization) unless my employer, SG or SO expressly endorse 
> such statements.  This is not just the case with respect to CWGs, but is also 
> the case with any Working Groups in general.
>  
> This last point is critical in my mind for approving CWGs in the future.  To 
> date there have been several CWGs where external parties have taken the word 
> of the CWGs to represent the views of the community when they represented the 
> views of the individuals serving on the WG and may not have represented the 
> views of the communities from which they came.
> Jeffrey J. Neuman 
> Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy
> 
> The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use 
> of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or 
> privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have 
> received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, 
> distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have 
> received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete 
> the original message.
>  
>  
> From: owner-gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On 
> Behalf Of William Drake
> Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2011 7:43 AM
> To: Stéphane Van Gelder
> Cc: Glen de Saint Géry; gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-ccwg-dt] FW: [council] Cross community working groups
>  
> Hi
>  
> On Mar 3, 2011, at 1:37 PM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
> 
> 
> Thanks Glen,
>  
> Just to help get the group discussion going, allow me to resubmit what Jaime 
> sent to the Council list yesterday on CWGs.
>  
> Initiating discussions as a first kick ahead of the list, I advance and
> restate my opinion.
> 
> Cross Community Working Groups can work well to foster informal
> communication and understanding on specific issues among stakeholders.
>  
> Agree
> 
> 
> But formal communication with the Board must be framed so as not to
> undermine SOs and ACs authority.
>  
> Agree with the principle as stated, but it's debatable whether this has or 
> could happen.
>  
> Best
>  
> Bill
> 
>  
>  
>  
> Le 3 mars 2011 à 11:32, Glen de Saint Géry a écrit :
> 
> 
> 
> Dear All,
> 
> A mailing list has been created <Gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx> with public archives 
> at
> http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-ccwg-dt/
> 
> The following participants who volunteered have been added to the mailing 
> list:
> Rosemary Sinclair
> Wendy Seltzer
> Bill Drake
> Jaime Wagner
> Jeff Neuman
> Tim Ruiz
> Jonathan Robinson
> 
> Stéphane van Gelder, GNSO chair and Mary Wong have been added as observers as 
> is the custom to add the chair and vice chairs to all mailing lists.
> 
> Please let me know if you have any questions.
> Thank you.
> Kind regards
> 
> Glen
> 
> Glen de Saint Géry
> GNSO Secretariat
> gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://gnso.icann.org
> 
> Councillors,
> 
> As a reminder, during our previous meeting the subject of CWGs was discussed 
> and that we had planned to put together a discussion group on this.
> 
> So far, volunteers to the group are: Rosemary, Jaime, Bill, Tim, Jonathan, 
> Jeff and Wendy.
> 
> Has the group chosen a leader and if so, could you let the Council know who 
> that is?
> 
> Is it feasible to ask the discussion group to come back with a summary of 
> discussions and possible positions that the Council could adopt on CWGs 
> within 2 months?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Stéphane
> 
>  
>