RE: [gnso-ccwg-dt] Re: RESEND re: Revised Draft Principles/Next Call

[Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

And see my one comment below.  Alan

At 23/11/2011 04:04 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> Please see my responses below.
>
> Chuck
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Wendy Seltzer [mailto:wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2011 12:03 PM
> > To: Mike O'Connor
> > Cc: Julie Hedlund; Gomes, Chuck; gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: Re: [gnso-ccwg-dt] Re: RESEND re: Revised Draft
> > Principles/Next Call
> >
> > On 11/23/2011 11:19 AM, Mike O'Connor wrote:
> > > here's my interpretation (FWIW)
> > >
> > > the provision to be overridden is 2, b, c -- "CWGs' output must not
> > > be taken as an expression of community consensus, except as it may be
> > > endorsed as such by its chartering organization."
> > >
> > > so the provision limits the result to being purely internal to the
> > > CWG and should not be viewed as community consensus/policy until it
> > > has gone back through the chartering AC/SOs for review/approval.
> >
> > Yes, this was my primary intent. Groups should feel free to commission
> > CWGs to help them in working through issues, identifying preliminary
> > points of consensus and difference, generating possible solutions,
> > without fearing that they will be bound by what the group says.  (That
> > is, SOs/ACs can create a subgroup without delegating policy-making
> > authority. It's not even clear whether they could delegate policy-
> > making
> > authority, but at times, there's been concern that other ICANN entities
> > might improperly take a group's deliberations as an indication of
> > policy
> > even when it hasn't been ratified by the SO/AC.)
>
> [Gomes, Chuck] I am fine with the above from Mikey and Wendy but 
> don't think what is currently in the rationale column is at all 
> clear.  I wonder whether Wendy's statement above ("Groups should 
> feel free to commission CWGs to help them in working through issues, 
> identifying preliminary points of consensus and difference, 
> generating possible solutions, without fearing that they will be 
> bound by what the group says.  (That is, SOs/ACs can create a 
> subgroup without delegating policy-making authority.") would be a 
> better for the rationale column.
> >
> > >
> > > the language proposes that this could be overridden in the charter --
> > > so presumably the CWG would then be empowered to speak for the whole
> > > community directly, rather than through the respective AC/SO's (which
> > > i think is a bad idea).
> >
> > This point was intended not as explanation of the primary point, but as
> > a possible special-case alternative (overriding the default). If we
> > don't think it's a good idea ever to permit that override, then let's
> > not include it.
> >
> > > furthermore it's saying that people outside the WG would then lose
> > > their ability to object (which, by inference i also think is a bad
> > > idea).
> >
> > By "lose their ability to object," I mean that at some point, the
> > policy
> > process reaches a final conclusion, at which point participants need to
> > live with its outcomes or use ICANN's appeal mechanisms.  In the
> > general
> > case, that happens through GNSO PDP -- explicitly not through CWGs.
> >
> > > have i got that right?
>
> [Gomes, Chuck] I tend to think that it might be better to delete the 
> text in the rationale column in this regard because, in my opinion, 
> what is there now could be too easily misunderstood.    An 
> alternative might be to use Wendy's text above: " at some point, the 
> policy process reaches a final conclusion, at which point 
> participants need to live with its outcomes or use ICANN's appeal 
> mechanisms.  In the general case, that happens through GNSO PDP -- 
> explicitly not through CWGs."
[AG} I have lost track of where this is to go, but I think that this 
document should not be making additional references to the formal 
policy development process. We already nix that in 1.iii and it does 
not need to be hammered on again.

> >
> > Thanks,
> > --Wendy
> >
> > >
> > > mikey
> > >
> > >
> > > On Nov 23, 2011, at 10:09 AM, Julie Hedlund wrote:
> > >
> > >> Chuck,
> > >>
> > >> This was text that Wendy sent to the list immediately after the
> > >> call yesterday and I added to the document for
> > >> discussion/consideration.  Thus, I'll defer to Wendy concerning
> > >> your questions.
> > >>
> > >> Thanks, Julie
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On 11/23/11 11:04 AM, "Chuck Gomes" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Thanks Julie.
> > >>>
> > >>> Forgive my denseness but I am having trouble understanding the
> > >>> following rationale for 2.c) iii): "A CWG's charter could
> > >>> override that provision, with explicit reference, giving people
> > >>> notice that unless they participated in the CWG, they'd risk
> > >>> losing opportunity to object."  What provision could be
> > >>> overridden?  Are we considering suggesting that people could lose
> > >>> their opportunity to object if they don't participate in the CWG?
> > >>> I'd like to think not, but it sure sounds that way to me.
> > >>>
> > >>> Chuck
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> From: owner-gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> > >>> [mailto:owner-gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund
> > >>> Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2011 5:11 PM To:
> > >>> gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx Subject: [gnso-ccwg-dt] RESEND re: Revised
> > >>> Draft Principles/Next Call
> > >>>
> > >>> All,
> > >>>
> > >>> It seems like the Word document may have been corrupted in
> > >>> transit.  I'm resending it.
> > >>>
> > >>> Thanks, Julie
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> On 11/22/11 5:07 PM, "Julie Hedlund" <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>
> > >>> wrote: All,
> > >>>
> > >>> Here are some brief notes from today's call concerning the
> > >>> revisions to the Draft Principles.  The revised document is
> > >>> attached in Word and PDF and also is posted to the wiki at
> > >>>
> > https://community.icann.org/display/gnsoccwgdraftteam/5.+Background+Doc
> > uments.
> > >>> The redline/tracked changes indicate those changes that were
> > >>> suggested during the call or immediately after.  Please let me
> > >>> know if you have any questions.  Your additional edits to the
> > >>> document are welcome and encouraged!
> > >>>
> > >>> Our next call is scheduled for Tuesday, 06 December at UTC/1200
> > >>> PST/1500 EST/2000 London/2100 CET.  A reminder will be send prior
> > >>> to the call.
> > >>>
> > >>> Best regards,
> > >>>
> > >>> Julie
> > >>>
> > >>> Attendees:  Jonathan Robinson (Chair), Chuck Gomes Alan
> > >>> Greenberg, Mikey O'Conner, Wendy Seltzer, Jaime Wagner; Staff:
> > >>> Julie Hedlund, Liz Gasster, and Nathalie Peregrine
> > >>>
> > >>> General Comments: Accept changes suggested by John and Chuck
> > >>> unless otherwise noted Add outline numbering throughout (as
> > >>> reference below) Note that since rationale will be included in
> > >>> the final document (not only for WG use) then the language should
> > >>> be made parallel and details added. Consider whether to use
> > >>> "should" or "must" (suggestion in chat room by Wendy)
> > >>>
> > >>> 1. Scope of CWGs: a) Change "Limit purpose to" to "Purpose" i)
> > >>> Delete "and/or to ICANN staff"
> > >>>
> > >>> 2. Operations of CWGs:
> > >>>
> > >>> a) Formation of CWGs: ii) Consider adding "whenever possible" and
> > >>> bracket for further discussion. Could include a situation where
> > >>> you had a ccNSO/GNSO WG where you had some issues of common
> > >>> interest and others that were not, or where a separate set of
> > >>> rules might apply.  There could be issues where there might be a
> > >>> separate set of rules.  However, others asked why more than one
> > >>> set of rules might apply.  Marked for discussion on the next
> > >>> call.  Also, add language suggested by Mikey that indicates that
> > >>> the charter defines the rules and procedures for the CWG.
> > >>>
> > >>> b) Execution of CWGs: i) Why "as appropriate"?  Suggested
> > >>> revision: "CWGs should follow the approved charter and bring
> > >>> concerns back to all chartering organizations for resolution
> > >>> according to their respective processes."
> > >>>
> > >>> c) Outcomes of CWGs i) Suggested revision: "Policy
> > >>> recommendations should be considered for possible approval and
> > >>> approved through the appropriate Policy Development Process." ii)
> > >>> Suggested revision: Delete "only" and "further" and change to
> > >>> "must communicate". iii)  Add new iii based on comments in the
> > >>> chat and Wendy's follow up email on the list.
> > >>>
> > >
> > > - - - - - - - - - phone     651-647-6109 fax                866-280-
> > 2356 web
> > > http://www.haven2.com handle        OConnorStP (ID for public places
> > like
> > > Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx +1 914-374-0613
> > Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project
> > Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University
> > http://wendy.seltzer.org/
> > https://www.chillingeffects.org/
> > https://www.torproject.org/
> > http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/