ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: RES: [gnso-ccwg-dt] FOR REVIEW: Revised Draft Principles -- "wherever possible"?

  • To: Jaime Wagner - PowerSelf <jaime@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "'Mike O'Connor'" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>, "'Julie Hedlund'" <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: RES: [gnso-ccwg-dt] FOR REVIEW: Revised Draft Principles -- "wherever possible"?
  • From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 13:43:44 -0500

To answer Jaime's question (as a member of the JAS WG and as the person who had a major role in writing the charters), if we had not had identical charters at the start, I am not sure what would have happened. To recite what DID happen:

1) A charter was proposed (can't remember the detailed origin) and was amended in a number of ways that ended up being acceptable to all. 2) Due to a editing error, the GNSO approved the WRONG charter which was missing one clause that had been added during the drafting process (and agreed upon by all parties).
3) For expediency, the ALAC approved the charter AS ADOPTED by the GNSO.

For the RE-CHARTERING of the WG after initial Board action,

1) A new charter was proposed (by the WG membership I believe)
2) The ALAC approved it.
3) The GNSO changed it radically and approved that version resulting in a situation akin to Mikey's "going in two different directions". Note that this was a GNSO decision to have two divergent charters at that point. 4) The ALAC re-wrote its version to insure that it was a simple superset of the GNSO version. This no longer was akin to a plane flying in two directions, but something that every commercial pilot is very familiar with - flying from A to B and then going on to C.

The end result may not have been optimal, but then neither is taking a flight from A to C which stops in B for an hour. But it was a workable and the WG was willing to accept that some of its work product need only be presented to the ALAC, and some to both chartering organizations, since there was NOTHING that caused any conflict or caused the WG Co-Chairs to have to divide the group or alternate meetings or decide on conflicting instructions. Ultimately, the GNSO explicitly said that it wanted to see the entire report and that is what happened.

My preference is that the guidelines we are producing allow some flexibility. ALLOWING flexible chartering does not mean it will happen. Each chartering organization will presumably be made up of sentient beings who will do all in their power to ensure that the WG they charter will be effective. If the situation in their collective minds warrants a split, why should we presume to know better than those who will actually be aware of the specifics at the time? I do note that without any guidelines whatsoever, we have had a number of joint working groups, and none of them has ever started off with anything but a single charter.

That being said, as a member of the DT who is not a GNSO SG member, I will not press this point further.


At 16/12/2011 04:18 PM, Jaime Wagner - PowerSelf wrote:

I agree with your considerations in general and I also agree that they reflect the ideal requirements.

Nevertheless, I keep my two concerns to open a window with the “whenever possible”:

1) One is a practical consideration: leave room for reality since it already happened. I didn’t participate in the JAS CWG and I am not aware of the minutiae of the process and the reasons behind the need for two charters. I wonder (and this is not as a figure of speech, but a request for information) if the group would be formed or would continue its work if we already had a requirement for a unique consensus charter among all SOs and ACs involved. What would be better: a) the group follow its work with two charters and all the burdens and “quid pro quos” that happened; or b) halt until a common charter would be discussed. Would the time constraints be met? Has something of value emerged from the work as it has been done? Or the harms and frictions superseded the benefits?

2) The other is a matter of principle: can we impose a consensus over goals to something that can work as a mechanism to foster understanding when there is no consensus among the parties?

Jaime B. Wagner
Cel: (51)8126-0916    Geral: (51)3233-3551

* <http://www.powerself.com.br/site/lojavirtual.produtos.php?idprodtipo=3>Power Tasks: Gerenciador de tarefas para IPhone:

De: <mailto:owner-gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx>owner-gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx] Em nome de Mike O'Connor
Enviada em: quarta-feira, 14 de dezembro de 2011 11:33
Para: Julie Hedlund
Cc: <mailto:gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx>gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Assunto: Re: [gnso-ccwg-dt] FOR REVIEW: Revised Draft Principles -- "wherever possible"?

thanks Julie,

i really want to continue the discussion about 2.a,ii where we leave the [wherever possible] clause in. here's the sentence, just to make the thread easier to follow;

All participating SOs/ACs should approve a single, joint Charter [whenever possible] that defines the rules and procedures for the CWG.

as your customer, i want to understand the circumstances where a working group would be handed *more than one* charter to operate under. that seems really weird to me. i'd also really like to understand how we think the working group is going to operate if it has more than one charter.

            - alternating charters by week?

- half the working group works under one, the other half under the other?

- hand the unresolved dispute to the co-chairs and let *them* resolve it?

as an old geezer, it's always fun to see new things but i have to admit that i've never heard of a plane going to two destinations at the same time -- or leaving the destination-dispute up to the pilots to decide after the plane has taken off. i think the airline's customers would get restive…


On Dec 13, 2011, at 4:05 PM, Julie Hedlund wrote:


Attached in Word and PDF are the revised Draft Principles based on the changes agreed to on today’s call. Note that the redline reflects new additions on the call. Redlining was removed where edits from the list and the meeting on 22 November have been accepted. This also is posted to the wiki at: <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsoccwgdraftteam/5.+Background+Documents>https://community.icann.org/display/gnsoccwgdraftteam/5.+Background+Documents.

Note: As discussed the rationale section is included, but it was agreed that it would not be included in the version sent to the Council. However, further edits to the rationale text are encouraged as these may be useful to provide during Council discussions.

Our next call is scheduled for Tuesday, 20 December at UTC/1200 PST/1500 EST/2000 London/2100 CET. A reminder will be send prior to the call.

Best regards,


Attendees: Jonathan Robinson (Chair), Chuck Gomes, Alan Greenberg, Mikey O’Conner, Wendy Seltzer, Jaime Wagner; Staff: Julie Hedlund, Liz Gasster, and Nathalie Peregrine <Draft Principles for CWGs 13 Dec 2011.doc><Draft Principles for CWGs 13 Dec 2011.pdf>

- - - - - - - - -
phone      651-647-6109
fax                          866-280-2356
web         <http://www.haven2.com>http://www.haven2.com
handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy