Re: [gnso-ccwg-dt] FW: [council] Cross community working groups
- To: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [gnso-ccwg-dt] FW: [council] Cross community working groups
- From: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2011 19:23:32 +0100
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
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?
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
> 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
> 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.
> 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.
> 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
> The following participants who volunteered have been added to the mailing
> 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 de Saint Géry
> GNSO Secretariat
> 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?