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

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

Thanks Jeff, it does and I also think that is the point I understood you to be 
making.

My point is that is true of any group. If I sit on a GNSO WG, I can either 
speak as an individual or as a registrar rep. I am saying that there is always 
a need for that distinction to be made and for me to state on behalf of whom I 
am speaking, but that is not a reason to ban me from the group if I am not 
there as an individual.

I think the same applies to a CWG, i.e. I can be on that group as a registrar 
rep if the RrSG so wishes. And I should be allowed to do that, as long as I am 
always clear on who's behalf I am speaking at any given moment.

Hope that makes my point clearer as well.

Thanks,

Stéphane



Le 3 mars 2011 à 19:42, Neuman, Jeff a écrit :

> 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] 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
> 
>  
>  
>