RE: [soac-mapo] Exchange of letters between GAC and ICANN re: morality issues

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Bertrand.  Your 'two cents' is appreciated.

 

I want to let everyone know that the main topic for both the joint GAC/GNSO and 
joint ccNSO/GNSO meetings in Cartagena is the issue of CWGs going forward.  I 
personally believe we are long past the time when we need to spend some time as 
a community to try to better define how such groups should function and how 
they fit in overall ICANN processes.

 

Chuck

 

From: owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
Bertrand de La Chapelle
Sent: Monday, November 29, 2010 7:06 AM
To: soac-mapo; Jon Nevett
Subject: Re: [soac-mapo] Exchange of letters between GAC and ICANN re: morality 
issues

 

Dear all,

The Cross-community Working Group format is relatively new and does not have a 
formal recognition yet in the Bylaws. The discussion on this thread is a very 
valid one, but we need to distinguish between 1) the specific implementation 
for Rec 6 and how we deal with the results of the group, and 2) the more 
general issue of the nature and fuction of such Cross-community groups. 

1) On the Rec6 group itself, the discussion below reminds us that :

- as Jon says, the CWG should not be viewed as a formal policy-making group; it 
has no authority other than the potential quality of the outcome and its 
capacity to help untangle a very difficult issue
- as Milton says, the GAC has indeed encouraged and endorsed the creation of 
the Group (and asked for it); but as Frank mentions, GAC members have clearly 
participated individually, in a goodwill effort, and not as representatives of 
the whole GAC (like all other participants, none of whom engaged their 
respective constituencies a priori)
- no consituency, SO or AC should be supposed to have endorsed the outcome of 
the group unless they have done so explicitly (as ALAC did); this is valid for 
the GAC as well as the gNSO; however it is true that members of said groups 
should not voluntary abstain from participating for the sole benefit of being 
able afterwards to object to whatever outcome is produced (this would not be a 
"good faith" participation in a multi-stakeholder process); this requires of 
course that sufficient information is circulated on the progress of discussions
- if the purpose and procedures of such informal groups, as well as the status 
of their outcomes are not clear enough, some (legitimate) fears will arise 
regarding the existing policy-making processes (cf. Jon, Stéphane and Avri)

The Rec6 group was formed very late in the process, to try to iron out a 
solution to probably the most political problem pending, one that (in)directly 
involves national sovereignty and the existence (or not) of general principles 
of international law applicable to the DNS.

In view of this extremely loaded question and given the extremely short time 
span, the group has clearly demonstrated the benefit of a full cross-community 
interaction : I was personally very impressed by the quality of the exchanges 
and the outcomes. Cathagena should be an opportunity for the community as a 
whole to see what can be done with the results. 

2) As for the more general discussion of the nature and use of such CC groups, 
I believe this format should in the future be used much earlier in processes, 
almost as soon as a new topic arises, to engage all SOs and ACs in the early 
framing of the issue.  It has proven useful even at the late stage of a very 
sensitive topic, and its use early in the process will no doubt foster a much 
better involvement of all actors later in the policy discussion, including in 
the existing PDPs, if it is used appropriately.

Using this interaction format also at various stages of progress in policy 
drafting would certainly improve what Milton labels the "disfunctionality of 
the current arrangements for multi-stakeholder cooperation within ICANN" and 
facilitate the breaking up of silos. 

A formal introduction of this new interaction format in the ICANN toolset can 
be done without threatening the existing PDPs and this discussion should 
continue on a separate track from the specific case of the Rec6 goup. 

My two cents.

Best

Bertrand






On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 5:55 AM, Jon Nevett <jon@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I support the model of cross-community discussion groups, such as this CWG.  In 
certain circumstances, they are a very good idea.  I think that it worked very 
well in this case.  

 

Unfortunately, some folks have been characterizing this group as something that 
it is not.  It is not a policy-making group and our report was not a 
pronouncement with some sort of imprimatur of the will of ICANN community.  It 
should be viewed for what it is/was -- a group of interested volunteers getting 
together to discuss potential solutions to an issue based on the request of 
some of the leaders of various ICANN supporting organizations/advisory 
committees.  We were successful in offering up some good suggestions and 
proposals, but the work has never been ratified by the policy-making body and 
should not be viewed as bottom-up policy-making.  Therefore, if the ICANN Board 
disagrees with a recommendation of this group with a clear rationale, I don't 
view it as an affront to the bottom-up policy making model as others have been 
articulating.  

 

My concern is that if folks oversell the nature of the group and try to deem 
this kind of a discussion group as one with a policy-making function, then the 
those with the actual policy-making responsibility under ICANN's Bylaws might 
choose not to support groups like the CWG for fear that the work will be viewed 
as policy-making without the due process protections built into the Bylaws.  In 
order to foster future discussion groups like the CWG, I suggest that we not 
suggest that they are something that they are not.  

 

Thanks.

 

Jon

 

 

On Nov 28, 2010, at 5:31 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:





Thanks, Frank.

I do understand the point you are making. Problem is, it's incorrect. The CWG 
was officially co-convened by the Chair of GAC along with the chairs of ALAC 
and GNSO, and there was active representation of several GAC members in it. 
Moreover, the charter of this group was approved by the GAC chair and passed by 
the full GAC for its approval. Therefore while you may be right to say that it 
is still unclear whether GAC as a body would fully endorse the results of the 
report and its recommendations, it is plainly not correct to say that "the GAC" 
did not participate in it. It did.

 

Beyond that, on a more human level, I wonder whether you have thought through 
the longer term implications of what you seem to be saying/doing. Many people, 
not just myself, would take this kind of distancing as further evidence of the 
dysfunctionality of current arrangements for multistakeholder cooperation in 
ICANN. As long as representatives of national governments hold themselves apart 
from the process and (through strategic behavior) seek a special, privileged 
influence over policy outcomes, then there will be major challenges to the 
legitimacy of both the GAC and the policy outputs that come out of the board on 
any issue. That lack of good faith process can only hold back the internet.

 

Certainly, if governments want to make these decisions on their own, on their 
own terms, they can do it. But then they'd have to be big boys and girls and 
negotiate and pass a binding international treaty. And that would require you 
to follow constitutional constraints, due process requirements and ratification 
processes of the member states. If you're not willing to do that, then perhaps 
you need to take these processes a bit more seriously. You can't have it both 
ways.

 

Cheers,

--MM

 

(p.s., if you do want to go the treaty route, I look forward to discussing the 
First Amendment implications with the U.S. representatives.)

 

 

From: Frank March [mailto:Frank.March@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Sunday, November 28, 2010 3:51 PM
To: Milton L Mueller; Antony Van Couvering; soac-mapo
Cc: Heather.Dryden@xxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [soac-mapo] Exchange of letters between GAC and ICANN re: morality 
issues

 

Without wishing to seem pedantic, the GAC did not participate in the Rec6WG. As 
I was at pains to point out on a number of occasions, some GAC members 
including myself were part of the group but not able to speak on behalf of the 
GAC.  I would like to think that the overall direction of the report would have 
strong GAC support but this has not been tested.

 

Because of the timing issues of getting the report ready in time for the 
Council retreat, it was never proposed that the report be taken formally to the 
GAC for discussion or endorsement.  My view is that it it is the Board's 
response to the report and the outcomes therefrom that would engage the GAC, 
not the report itself.

 

Given that the issues raised are still 'live' and the work is carrying on it 
would certainly be possible to have a discussion in Cartagena.  I have a 
feeling however that endorsement of the report from the GAC would be difficult 
to achieve.  It might well be considered by some members not to be an 
appropriate action for the GAC to take.

 

Best wishes, Frank

 

----

Frank March

Senior Specialist Advisor

Communications and IT Policy

Ministry of Economic Development

33 Bowen Street, PO Box 1473

WELLINGTON, New Zealand

Mobile: (+64) 021 494165

 

         

________________________________

        From: owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Milton L Mueller
        Sent: Monday, 29 November 2010 4:48 a.m.
        To: Antony Van Couvering; soac-mapo
        Subject: RE: [soac-mapo] Exchange of letters between GAC and ICANN re: 
morality issues

        The disturbing thing about this exchange of letters is that both sides 
seem to treat this working group - which GAC participated in - as if it did not 
contribute "thoughtful proposals" to resolve the stated concerns.

         

 




-- 
____________________
Bertrand de La Chapelle
Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32

"Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint 
Exupéry
("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans")