RE: CWG and Observers.

["Richard Hill" <rhill@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Avri,

Thank you for this.  I understand what you say below, and I fully respect
your views, but unfortunately the formal charter of the CWG is clear, and it
does not match my idea of an open process.  So I cannot participate directly
in the CWG.

However, there won't necessarily be a delay in looking at what I have to
say, because I have submitted to the ICG what I would submit to CWG, and I
understand that the ICG has requested that it be submitted to the
operational communities.  So, when the CWG starts its substantive work, it
should have in front of it what I would have submitted if I had been
directly involved in CWG.

Thanks again and best,
Richard

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@xxxxxxx]
> Sent: lundi, 29. septembre 2014 18:07
> To: Richard Hill
> Cc: icg-forum@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: CWG and Observers.
>
>
> Response to http://forum.icann.org/lists/icg-forum/msg00011.html
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> I think that Observers is an unfortunate word for what we are trying to
> do.  As part of the charter draft group, I wish the issue had occurred
> to me, or that someone had brought it up earlier.  But as an ICANN
> insider who has frequently been an observer in an ICANN group, I knew
> what was intended.  I can't blame you for not knowing and I do see the
> problem.
>
> It is true that there are 2 types of membership in this group, those who
> are accountable to the various supporting ICANN Supporting Organization,
> Advisory Committees and Stakeholder Groups (SOAC/SG) and those who are
> participating as individuals.  We called the second group Observers.
>
> What the charter calls Observer, are full participants in the
> discussions and in the consensus building.  I.e that have regular seats
> with equal footing at the discussion/consensus building table.
>
> Since the ICG has determined that proposals must come from the
> operational communities and since the ICANN CWG was created by the
> SOAC/SG to respond to that requirement, any result needs to go back to
> the SOAC/SG* as the chartering organizations for final approval before
> going off to the ICG.  The SOAC/SG accountable members of the CWG are
> responsible for the report that goes back for approval to their
> individual SOAC/SG.  They are the only ones who get to determine that
> consensus has been reached and have a vote on the report if it comes
> down to needing a vote and that the report is ready to go.  Of course if
> ICANN as an operational community, claims there was (rough) consensus
> when there wasn't, lots of people (including me) will decry that
> situation to the ICG forum and inform our reps on the ICG - for those
> who are lucky enough to have reps on the ICG, so it is not likely to
> happen.
>
> The preference is that all of the substantive work be done by consensus
> of all participants, ie. by everyone including observers.  If we do the
> consensus call properly, we will have covered any issue that anyone
> brought into the discussion in a complete manner.  And in normal ICANN
> practice, if there are irreconcilable differences they will be
> documented in the report and will warrant more work.
>
> I think the problem is more semantic than actual.  Observer are full
> participants with the following caveats:
>
> - They participate in their own capacity as opposed to as
> representatives accountable to the ICANN group that chose them, though
> they may indeed be answerable to some other organization's
> accountability mechanisms that are beyond the mandate of ICANN.
>
> - At the end of the day, the final decision is made by the SOAC/SG and
> the members they picked for the group.  We hope to avoid voting, but in
> a timed exercise, such as this is, it sometimes comes down to voting.
> One time where a consensus call or voting sometime happens is, for
> example, after consensus or rough consensus has been reached and the
> final report is prepared; sometimes a formal consensus call or vote is
> taken where those voting state that to the best of their knowledge the
> report is indeed a fair representation of the final (rough) consensus
> reached.  This is the same thing they will need to report to their
> respective SOAC/SG.
>
>
> As I was just appointed as the NCSG representative on the group,
> Richard, I personally think it would be a pity for you to sit it out and
> submit a separate proposal, and for us to wait until after the ICG sends
> your recommendation back to the ICANN CWG for us to start debating your
> points.  I hope you will reconsider and join the effort.
>
> For my part I will do what I can as a member of the group to make sure
> that we follow through with the intent of full participation by those we
> have called observers.  I don't know if the wording of the charter can
> be changed at this point without wasting months on more process stuff,
> but I will present the issue to the group.  In any case I will make sure
> that observers have every opportunity for full participation to the best
> of my ability.
>
> avri
>
> * and probably the ICANN board - not sure what role they have in the
> approval of the report, but I expect they will have some role.
>
>