[Internal-cg] URGENT, suggested poll.

James M. Bladel jbladel at godaddy.com
Sun Jul 27 15:38:49 UTC 2014

Nothing to add to this thread, except my agreement with Keith, Lynn and



On 7/27/14, 10:24 , "Drazek, Keith" <kdrazek at verisign.com> wrote:

>I also agree.
>The various bottom-up community processes will conduct the work and
>submit the proposals to the ICG. It is not the job of the ICG to make
>substantive decisions concerning the output of the community's consensus
>recommendations. The ICG is simply the facilitator to help bring the
>proposals together into a single cohesive recommendation with consensus
>In my opinion, the role of the chair or chairs is only to help us
>coordinate our work and ensure the consolidation process is workable,
>focused on timely delivery of a joint recommendation, and is as efficient
>as possible.
>Diversity in all forms (geographic, gender, language, interest) should
>unquestionably be a part of the community processes that develop and
>recommend their respective consensus positions.
>As we discussed and agreed in London, the role of the chair or chairs is
>explicitly NOT to represent any particular group and IS based on the
>ability to get the job done. I raised the concern in London that by
>expanding the number of co-chairs to three, we risked politicizing the
>role unnecessarily. I think that's now happening.
>We should refocus our attention on the operational needs of the group and
>the demands of the position rather than injecting political concerns into
>a purely administrative role. If I'm off-base here, please let me know
>what I'm missing.
>On Jul 27, 2014, at 4:57 PM, "Lynn St.Amour" <Lynn at lstamour.org> wrote:
>> Hi Jean-Jacques,
>> I am in full agreement with Joe and Wolf-Ulrich's comments below.  They
>>captured the sense of London very well, and I too would like to see the
>>poll continue.
>> Best regards,
>> Lynn
>> On Jul 27, 2014, at 10:03 AM, "WUKnoben"
>><wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de> wrote:
>>> Cher Jean-Jacques,
>>> hello Colleagues,
>>> as I try to refresh my memory on what was decided by the group in
>>>London Samantha Dickinsons extensive minutes can be of helpful
>>> "
>>>     Alhadeff nominated Cooper as interim chair.
>>> Cooper put the question of two or three co-chairs to the hum: three
>>>co-chaired was the option favored by the group." (p. 17 of day 2)
>>> This to me is not "unanimous" rather than a "tendency" between 2
>>>options. I admit that the other options came (again) in through later
>>>discussing on the list. The question Jean-Jacques touches is whether a
>>>hum is a decision or rather a snapshot of where we stood at that moment
>>>without having taken a final fecision on structure and number. I
>>>personally tend to snapshot.
>>> With this I don't see a need to discontinue polling the options on the
>>> website. Admittedly I would have strong concern to take any decision
>>>if until the given deadline a significant number of responses is not
>>> My comment re the letter of the ALAC chair:
>>> The letter points out that "The Transfer of the IANA Functions’
>>>Stewardship, as initiated by the US Government's National
>>>Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), is about
>>>divesting US Government oversight and transferring its responsibility
>>>to the GLOBAL Internet Community".
>>> The NTIA announcement says verbatim: “...to the global
>>>Multistakeholder Community”. Which makes no difference in the point
>>>ALAC makes here (“GLOBAL”) but shows a different perception re the
>>> I agree that the global approach should be reflected in the process of
>>>finding the proposal to the NTIA. Although the “US weight” in the ICG
>>>is heavy (as a result of the selection process in the various interest
>>>groups) I doubt the global approach must be fully reflected in the ICG
>>>chaimanship rather than in the structure of the groups preparing the
>>>detailed proposal. I’m sure this shall become a discussion topic when
>>>the CCWG initiated by ccNSO and GNSO shall  come into work.
>>> Best regards
>>> Wolf-Ulrich
>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>>> From: Subrenat, Jean-Jacques
>>> Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2014 11:50 AM
>>> To: alissa at cooperw.in
>>> Cc: ICG Internal
>>> Subject: [Internal-cg] URGENT, suggested poll.
>>> Good morning Alissa,
>>> Hello Colleagues,
>>> The Chair of the ALAC has asked me to bring to your attention the
>>> 1) In his recent message to this list, Olivier pointed out that "The
>>>ALAC considers it essential to uphold the decision taken in London to
>>>appoint 3 Co-Chairs, the process of which cannot be put to fault".
>>>There has not yet been a response or reply to this letter.
>>> 2) The poll your have set up regarding the leadership structure
>>>proposes several alternatives, but is based on a makeshift process
>>>following someone's ad hoc suggestion: this cannot in any way have the
>>>same standing as the UNANIMOUS decision of the CG in London to have 3
>>> In careful consideration of the above, the ALAC respectfully requests
>>>that the decision taken in London about the leadership structure be
>>>acted upon without delay, and that the proposed poll be discontinued.
>>> It is the sincere hope of the ALAC that the Coordination Group will
>>>take this opportunity to fully implement the principles of diversity,
>>>balance and fairness, so as to create a truly global trust regarding
>>>its membership and confidence in its processes.
>>> Thank you.
>>> Best regards,
>>> Jean-Jacques.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Internal-cg mailing list
>>> Internal-cg at icann.org
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Internal-cg mailing list
>>> Internal-cg at icann.org
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
>> _______________________________________________
>> Internal-cg mailing list
>> Internal-cg at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
>Internal-cg mailing list
>Internal-cg at icann.org

More information about the Internal-cg mailing list