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

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

Thanks for getting this discussion going again Jonathan.

Stéphane



Le 27 mars 2011 à 20:53, J Robinson a écrit :

> Hello All,
> 
> I am conscious that this is something we gave quite a lot of "airtime" to in 
> various discussions but have not really progressed it on the list.
> 
> Stéphane(see below) was looking for something to come back to the Council 
> within a couple of months (from 03/03/2011) and already a month has lapsed.  
> Also, as far as timing is concerned, it will be good if we can come to 
> Singapore with something accomplished.  Ideally, perhaps, be in a position to 
> meet with others outside of the GNSO and to take the discussion a little 
> wider.
> 
> So I am aiming with this e-mail to get us back into life.
> 
> My notes from San Francisco show this, at the highest level, to be an issue 
> where there seems to be good consensus on the potential effectiveness on 
> CCWGs but offset by the clear concern in and around the perception that CCWG 
> should not be taken to represent consensus policy.
> 
> One simple framework to start working with might be a SWOT type approach or 
> something similar.  That way we could tease out the positive issues as well 
> as the concerns, so reflecting some of the positions outlined below that 
> CCWGs have strengths and benefits but there are concerns.
> 
> Look forward to any feedback on how to organise the discussion and shape it 
> over the next month or so and concious of the timing of our next face-to-face 
> meeting.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> 
> Jonathan
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx on behalf of Wendy Seltzer
> Sent: Fri 04/03/2011 16:27
> To: Stéphane Van Gelder
> Cc: Neuman, Jeff; William Drake; Glen de Saint Géry; gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-ccwg-dt] FW: [council] Cross community working groups
> 
> 
> We also have to help the broader ICANN community understand the
> difference between hearing from a group of individuals, even individuals
> appointed as representatives of groups, and hearing from the GNSO.
> Working groups may be dominated by those with particular interests, or
> those with more time at a particular moment, and it's up to the GNSO
> Council to declare whether their output represents consensus policy.
> Finally, when there's a generic names issue on which the Board wants
> input, I think we need a better way of responding than just punting with
> the negative that whatever's presented *isn't* consensus.
> 
> --Wendy
> 
> On 03/03/2011 05:04 PM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
> > 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
> >>
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >
> >
> 
> 
> --
> Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx +1 914-374-0613
> Fellow, Princeton Center for Information Technology Policy
> Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University
> http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html
> https://www.chillingeffects.org/
> https://www.torproject.org/
> http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/
> 
>