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

["Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I don't think that is what I intended.  My point is that people outside of 
working groups have (and continue to have) a tendancy to equate the policies 
coming out of a CWG as having the support from the communities from which they 
come.  So, if you are on a CWG, unless it is made clear by the CWG otherwise, 
people assume that when you support a policy, it is also supported by INDOM 
(and GroupNBT), the registrars and the GNSO.

Over and over again in Brussels I heard GAC and Board members state that they 
are waiting to hear what comes out of the JAS CWG because that represents what 
the community wants to see.  I have had to correct them that what comes out of 
the JAS-WG is what the individuals who are on that CWG wants to see happen;  
But that does not necessarily reflect what the community wants to see happen 
unless and until the community has a chance to weigh in and endorse those 
policies.  The response from those on the GAC and the Board has sometimes been 
a confusing "But isn't that why the GNSO is on the JAS-WG?"  My 
counter-response is "The GNSO is not on the JAS-WG; individuals who happen to 
have an association with the GNSO are on that WG.  Unless and until the GNSO 
council (acting on behalf of the GNSO community) formally endorses those 
recommendation, then those recommendations are submitted by the individuals 
comprising the WG"

I hope that makes some more sense.

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: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2011 1:24 PM
To: Neuman, Jeff
Cc: William Drake; Glen de Saint Géry; gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-ccwg-dt] FW: [council] Cross community working groups

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> 
[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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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