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

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

Jamie,

Can you elaborate on your response? For some reason I do not recall the GAC 
conversation.

Thanks.
Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.
Vice President, Law & Policy
NeuStar, Inc.
Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx



From: Jaime Wagner - PowerSelf [mailto:jaime@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2011 10:55 AM
To: gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx <gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RES: [gnso-ccwg-dt] FW: [council] Cross community working groups

Dear All,

I was disappointed by the manifestation of the GAC as to the value of the 
informal participation of its members in the CCWGs. It seemed to me that they 
see no value in it. At least this was the position of the American 
representative, that was not opposed by any other country.

Think we should take this into account in our discussions, since (at least I 
think so) this could be a mechanism for the needed “early warning” they are 
requesting.

Jaime Wagner
jaime@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:jaime@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Direto (51) 3219-5955  Cel (51) 8126-0916
Geral  (51) 3233-3551  DDG: 0800-703-6366
www.powerself.com.br<http://www.powerself.com.br/>

De: owner-gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx] Em nome 
de J Robinson
Enviada em: domingo, 27 de março de 2011 15:54
Para: Wendy Seltzer; Stéphane Van Gelder
Cc: Neuman, Jeff; William Drake; Glen de Saint Géry; gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Assunto: RE: [gnso-ccwg-dt] FW: [council] Cross community working groups


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/