[bc-gnso] BC position -- comments on Working Group Guidelines v3

[Mike Rodenbaugh]

I just do not understand why participation on a Drafting Team indicates
potential bias as Chair.  People on DTs will be interested in the topic,
which ought to be desired of the Chair as well.  As you know we often have
too few volunteers, even without imposing arbitrary restrictions like this.

Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
tel/fax:  +1 (415) 738-8087
http://rodenbaugh.com 


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-bc-gnso at icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso at icann.org] On Behalf Of
Berry Cobb
Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2010 1:37 PM
To: 'bc - GNSO list'
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] BC position -- comments on Working Group Guidelines
v3


To counter the disagreement wrt item #1, the concern here is to prevent a
breach in neutrality.  I will not waste time with details, but a recent
example does exist where neutrality was compromised.  I can sign on for the
removal of this sentence from our Position Statement, due in part that we do
have limited resources given the demand.  With this removal, how can we
further promote and ensure neutrality of the WG chair?

Thank you.


Berry A. Cobb
Infinity Portals LLC
866.921.8891

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-bc-gnso at icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso at icann.org] On Behalf Of
Mike Rodenbaugh
Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2010 11:59
To: 'bc - GNSO list'
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] BC position -- comments on Working Group Guidelines
v3


Thanks Mikey, Berry and others for the work on these important Guidelines.

I am generally in support of the BC statement you have drafted, with the
following disagreements:

1.  I disagree with the addition of this sentence re WG Chairs:  "To further
promote neutrality, a person should avoid standing for Chair if they
participated on the Drafting Team that created the Charter of the Working
Group."  I think generally it ought to be beneficial for the Chair to have
been involved in the Drafting Team, and see no reason to exclude them in all
cases.  Thus we should remove this sentence.

2.  I disagree with the suggested additional language re neutrality of
Liasons.  The Liason's role is simply to communicate between WG and CO,
neutrality is not needed other than wrt those communications.  The Liason
should otherwise be able to participate fully.  It will be exceedingly
difficult if not impossible to find disinterested Liasons -- who would
volunteer for such a role if they are not interested?!  Thus we should
remove this recommendation.

3.  I disagree with the suggested language re 'consistent participation'.
We must recognize that many people will not have time for WG calls, for
example, and will choose to participate via the email list and otherwise in
writing.  This is particularly important not only for those with jobs
unrelated to ICANN, but also for those who do not speak English as a first
language and for those whose timezone may not be friendly to the WG
schedule.  Thus our comments should be clear that no meaningful WG decisions
should ever be accomplished without ability for input from the mail list,
and specifically should never be taken on the basis of participation on any
one or few WG calls.
Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
tel/fax:  +1 (415) 738-8087
http://rodenbaugh.com


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-bc-gnso at icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso at icann.org] On Behalf Of
Mike O'Connor
Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2010 2:39 AM
To: bc - GNSO list
Subject: [bc-gnso] BC position -- comments on Working Group Guidelines v3

hello all,

sorry to send this right at the beginning of the ICANN meetings, but timing
is tough and i need to send it now in order to be able to submit it on time.

thanks to all who contributed to this revised version of the draft position
-- especially Berry!

please review this between now and March 20th so that we/i can submit these
by the March 22nd deadline.

mikey