RE: CWG and Observers.
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. > >