[bc-gnso] GNSO Councilor statements on IRTP-B resolution

[Marilyn Cade]

Zahid, John, sitting in the room and watching the dialogue and the back and forth closely. Thanks so much, Zahid for your great intervention. 
I know that you have the full support of the ExComm members in the room, watching closely. 
It is a good lesson to us that the WG model does have  some warts, but we need to fix those. And as far as i recall, Council cannot change the policy recommendations: it can review [and should/determine if it is complete]; and based on that, approve, deny, or remand recommendations from a WG. 
If there are challenges in balanced participation in a WG, and Kristina mentioned an example of that..
but, the understanding of the WGs is that policy is developed at the WG, and that the Council reviews, determines it is complete, and fulsome or not, and approves, denies, or remands, with suggestions, I think. I do appreciate your clarity of the role of Council, and you were quite right in pointing out that while the outcome was acceptable [maybe frustrating but acceptable: e.g. delaying one element], in the initial discussion online it idid "feel' like a councilor might be proposing modifying a WG proposal. 
The take away I have from this is to have a discussion at the CSG level, with councilors and members from the CSG constituencies who have recent experience on WGs about what they think is working, or not working well in WGs.  Personally, I long for the days of having to have at least assigned/accountable rep per constituency for each WG, even if additional participants are permitted. It is hard to prevent 'capture' in the present environment, however, I am cognizant that having more people often provides more information. 
Steve, can I ask that you advice on the list of BC members who have experience in the present WGs. What I am interested in our understanding is if across the CSG that we all believe that improvements are needed for the WG process. changing the PDP process is coming up -- this is the time to look hard at the WG procedures and ask ourselves if the procedures are adequate.
Recruiting members to participate in WGs is very challenging, since we ask members to do a lot of work [a LOT of work]. I so much appreciate all the work that our members are doing on the various WGs, including those WGs related to Organizational stuff. 
Thanks again, Zahid

From: owner-bc-gnso at icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso at icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve DelBianco
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 12:33 AM
To: 'bc-GNSO at icann.org GNSO list'
Subject: [bc-gnso] GNSO Councilor statements on IRTP-B resolution Council unanimously passed a resolution on IRTB  (including deferred consideration of two items).   Congratulations to BC members Mikey O'Connor, Chris Chaplow, and Berry Cobb.  Zahid Jamil and others also recognized importance of respecting the product and process of Working Groups: JEFF NEUMAN:   I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE THE REQUEST OF ICANN STAFF TO FOLLOW SOME OF THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS SO WHEN THEY'RE DRAFTING THEIR FINAL REPORT THAT GOES TO THE BOARD, IF THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT THE COUNCIL OR, MORE IMPORTANTLY, THE ACTUAL WORKING GROUP COULD SEE SO THEY CAN BLESS THAT BEFORE YOUR REPORT -- YOUR STAFF REPORT GOES TO THE BOARD. IN THE INTEREST OF OPENNESS AND TRANSPARENCY, IF YOU COULD ACTUALLY RUN IT BY THAT GROUP.AGAIN, THAT IS A RECOMMENDATION OF THAT GROUP, AND I'D LIKE TO SEE, TO THE EXTENT WE CAN DO IT, THAT FOLLOWED NOW SO THAT WOULD BE A GOOD THING IF THAT COULD HAPPEN. I. THANKS, JEFF. ZAHID. >>ZAHID JAMIL: THANK YOU. FIRST OF ALL, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SAY THAT IT IS FANTASTIC THAT, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE GOT A CONSENSUS POLICY HERE AND EVERYBODY IS BEING SUPPORTING IT, INCLUDING US IN THE BUSINESS CONSTITUENCY. HOWEVER I HAVE BEEN ENCOURAGED AND URGED BY CERTAIN MEMBERS OF MY CONSTITUENCY WHO WERE ACTUALLY ACTIVELY PART OF THE WORKING GROUP HERE TO MAKE SOME SORT OF STATEMENT WITH REGARD TO THE CHALLENGES THAT ARE NOW FACED WITH THE NEW STRUCTURE OF THE GNSO.THE EVENTS OR CERTAIN DISCUSSIONS ONLINE SORT OF UNDERSCORE THE IMPORTANCE OF ENSURING THAT IN THIS NEW MODEL, CONSTITUENCIES AND STAKEHOLDER GROUPS KEEP A VERY CAREFUL HAWKEYE, IF NECESSARY, ON WORK AND DEVELOPMENTS IN THE DRAFTING TEAMS AND THE WORKING GROUPS, SO THAT WE CAN AVOID SITUATIONS WHERE POLICY MANAGERS MAY HAVE TO, AT TIMES, TINKER OR CHANGE CERTAIN DECISIONS OR TAKE DECISIONS CONTRARY, SOMETIMES, TO WHAT THE WORKING GROUPS COME UP WITH, ESPECIALLY IN THIS BOTTOM-UP POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS, SUCH AS WE'VE SEEN IN THE RAA AND NOW THE POSSIBLY -- EVEN THOUGH I'M GLAD TO SEE THAT WE'VE JUST DEFERRED IT -- IN THIS RESOLUTION. AND IF WE DON'T, WE RUN THE RISK OF DISINCENTIVIZING VOLUNTEERS WHO SPEND HEARSE OF HOURS OF THEIR PRECIOUS TIME WORKING ON THESE EFFORTS, SO I'M GLAD THAT IN THIS RESOLUTION WHAT WE'VE DONE IS AT LEAST JUST DEFERRED SOME OF THE -- COUPLE OF MOTIONS THERE AND I JUST WANTED TO AGAIN SAY THAT IT IS FANTASTIC TO SEE THAT, YOU KNOW, THE HARD WORK OF THE WORKING GROUP HAS COME TO FRUITION, BUT I'D JUST LIKE TO SORT OF AGAIN UNDERSCORE THE IMPORTANCE OF US KEEPING A CAREFUL EYE ON THE WORK TEAM'S WORK. >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: THANKS, ZAHID. I DON'T WANT TO SAY TOO MUCH, BUT I JUST -- I DO -- I MEAN, THE MENTAL IS VERY CLEAR. IN THIS INSTANCE, I ACTUALLY FAIL TO SEE WHY THE MESSAGE IS NECESSARY. I THINK AS TIM EXPLAINED EARLIER, THERE HAS BEEN NO ATTEMPT BY THE COUNCIL TO CHANGE ANYTHING THAT HAS COME UP FROM THE WORKING GROUP. IT'S JUST WE'RE GIVING OURSELVES TIME TO CONSIDER DIFFERENT THINGS IN DIFFERENT WAYS.BUT I KNOW JEFF WANTS TO SPEAK TO THIS, AND THEN I'LL PASS IT BACK TO YOU. >>JEFF NEUMAN: YEAH. I MEAN, I -- YOU'VE PRETTY MUCH SAID A LOT OF WHAT I WAS GOING TO SAY IN THIS INSTANCE I DON'T THINK WE'VE REWRITTEN ANYTHING, AND I THINK YOU'RE RIGHT. IF THERE IS SOMETHING THAT THE GNSO COUNCIL DISAGREES WITH, PROBABLY IT SHOULD GO BACK TO THE WORKING GROUP AND WE SHOULD NOT BE SUBSTITUTING OUR OWN OPINION FOR THAT OF THE WORKING GROUP THAT'S PUT IN A LOT OF EXTRA TIME ON THESE ISSUES.AND SO I GUESS I AGREE WITH THAT SENTIMENT AND I THINK IN THIS CASE, I THINK WE'VE DONE THE RIGHT THING. >>ZAHID JAMIL: THANKS. AS I SAID IN THE CLOSING AND ALSO IN THE BEGINNING, I'M GLAD TO SEE THAT THERE WAS A DEFERRAL HERE, BECAUSE THERE WAS DISCUSSION OF DOING SOMETHING OTHERWISE. IT'S IMPORTANT THAT I POINT OUT THAT THE WORKING GROUP, SOME OF THE MEMBERS WERE FEELING A LITTLE CONCERNED ABOUT CERTAIN THINGS THAT MIGHT HAVE HAPPENED, SO THAT IS SOME OF THE CONCERN. I WANTED TO ALLAY SOME OF THOSE FEARS AND I THINK THE COUNCIL HAS DONE THE RIGHT THING BY DEFERRING AND NOT CHANGING ANYTHING THERE, BUT IT'S IMPORTANT TO JUST KEEP AN EYE ON THE FACT THAT SOMETIMES WHEN THINGS ARE BEING DONE AT THE WORKING GROUP LEVEL, BY THE TIME THEY GET TO THE COUNCIL, CONSTITUENCIES MAY HAVE, YOU KNOW, SOMETIMES NOT REALIZED WHAT'S HAPPENING THERE, AND IT'S IMPORTANT TO KEEP AN EYE ON IT AND JUST THAT WAS THE STATEMENT I WANTED TO MAKE. BUT I AGREE THAT THE COUNCIL HAS TAKEN THE RIGHT DECISION BY NOT CHANGING THE BOTTOM-UP PROCESS AND INSTEAD JUST SAID OKAY, WE'RE DEFERRING THIS. THANKS. >>TIM RUIZ: YEAH. I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT THAT WHAT WE'VE DONE TODAY WAS TO UNANIMOUSLY ACCEPT EVERY CONSENSUS POLICY RECOMMENDATION MADE BY THIS WORKING GROUP, SO I DON'T WANT TO -- DON'T WANT US TO -- THAT TO BE OVERSHADOWED AND THE WORKING GROUP SHOULD BE, AGAIN, APPLAUDED AND THANKED FOR THEIR HARD WORK AND THE WAY THAT THEY'VE PROCEEDED, SO THAT WE HAVE NO QUESTION ABOUT THE CONSENSUS THAT EXISTED IN THESE POLICIES. >>JONATHAN ROBINSON: YEAH. AND I HOPE THIS IS -- THIS IS AT THE RISK OF OVER-EGGING THE SITUATION BUT TO ME WHAT THIS UNDERLINES AND EMPHASIZES THE PARTNERS OF THE WORKING GROUPS AND SENDS A VERY CLEAR MESSAGE OUT THAT IF YOU WANT TO INFLUENCE THE POLICY, GET INVOLVED IN THE WORKING GROUPS AND DO THAT AND WE WILL TAKE THAT VERY SERIOUSLY.  		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/bc-gnso/attachments/20110622/8fe64b15/attachment.html>