[council] FW: Action item on me from our teleconf yesterday regarding the recent Board Resolutions from Trondheim, reflecting on reports from various WG's including JAS and Rec6 CWG...

[Gomes, Chuck]

Please note the following email from Cheryl Langdon-Orr, ALAC Chair,
that was sent to me along with Heather Dryden and Frank March of the
GAC.  Noting that the references to the GNSO Council meeting should be
corrected to 7 October (not 8 October as stated in Cheryl's message),
under agenda 'Item 7: New gTLD Board Resolutions from Board Retreat' I
would like to request direction from the GNSO Council regarding how I
should respond.  In particular, please note the following excerpts from
Cheryl's message:

 

"My proposal to GNSO and GAC is that with the knowledge of how our AC is
planning to proceed and brief outline on some of the matters we wish to
address,  would GNSO and/or GAC  like to collaborate and proceed  in
these inquiries and analysis as a joint activity?  It is our belief that
particularly where we were jointly operating as Chartering Organisations
or in Cross Community mode this would be quite advantageous and if GNSO
and/or GAC  do wish to do so the ALAC and I look forward to the
opportunity to continue to build better and more robust models for
multi-stakeholderism and bottom up consensus built policy processes in
ICANN."

 

". . . ALAC will be writing to the Board and Senior staff involved, to
requesting some information and materials that we trust will help us (as
well as the WG participants and wider ICANN Community) the rational to
the resolutions of the Board regarding the Reports provided, as well as
some information as to depth and time taken in deliberation of the
recommendations  from the community (specifically the Consensus ones,
but also those with Strong Support) by the Board and for any information
and/or explanation we can be given to assist our understanding in the
decisions outlined in those resolutions, we will also be requesting
access to and prompt delivery of the Board briefing materials and staff
briefings on these substantial reports,  (the Board Books) under the
previously announced intentions and guidelines for these publications,
(since Brussels)  noting that  at this stage the community has not had
access to the Aug meetings materials  and if a similar delay was seen
with this retreat / meeting we would still be requesting information,
explanation and assistance towards our understanding as we go into the
Catagena meeting.  We have also been requested to write to the ATRT with
these concerns and with copy of the requests we make."

 

Please forward this request to your respective SGs and constituencies as
soon as possible and be prepared to discuss this on 7 October.

 

Thanks, Chuck

 

 

From: Cheryl Langdon-Orr [mailto:langdonorr at gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2010 3:15 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck; Heather.Dryden at ic.gc.ca; Frank March
Cc: alac-excom at atlarge-lists.icann.org
Subject: Action item on me from our teleconf yesterday regarding the
recent Board Resolutions from Trondheim, reflecting on reports from
various WG's including JAS and Rec6 CWG...

 

As discussed  in our brief chat yesterday,  the ALAC  at its meeting on
the 28th  discussed  several matters and concerns to our community  and
the At-Large participants in several of the recent WG activities
(particularly the WG focussed on VI, JAS and Rec6CWG) arising out of the
resolutions published recently from the Board Retreat at Trondheim,
Norway see http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-25sep10-en.htm
<http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-25sep10-en.htm>  

 

 

The ALAC meeting was joined by Regional (RALO) leadership, At-Large
Liaisons to ICANN SO's and other AC's and participants to the
aforementioned  WG's  which as you know range from the 'traditional SO /
GNSO Chartered WG (VI)  through the Joint Chartering Organisation of
JAS-WG between GNSO and ALAC to the tripartite or multi SOAC Cross
Community WG for Rec6 that was jointly managed under Terms of Reference
from GNSO, GAC and ALAC;  the ALAC had formally appointed  a Liaison
from us as a joint CO to both the JAS and Rec6CWG (operating under role
definitions and mechanisms from the current near final draft  GNSO WG
guidelines Section 2.2 page 11 of  <http://goog_673367091/>   GNSO
Working Group Guidelines - clean - updated 20 May 2010.doc
<https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=https%3A%2F%2Fst.icann.org%2Fdata%2F
workspaces%2Ficann-ppsc%2Fattachments%2Fworking_group_team%3A20100520152
255-0-26262%2Foriginal%2FGNSO%252520Working%252520Group%252520Guidelines
%252520-%252520clean%252520-%252520updated%25252020%252520May%2525202010
.doc>  ) and both these Liaisons addressed  serious concerns raised by
their respective WG's since the Board resolutions have been published
and the ALAC agreed that "Cheryl and ExCom to follow up on possibility
of executive of two chartering organizations (GNSO and ALAC) speaking to
Chuck about concerns re Board's reaction to JAS WG. Similar concerns
regarding the response to the report from the Rec6CWG, will be raised by
Cheryl in a teleconference between the CO's and Co-Chairs of that WG and
again follow through on this will be actioned either by the ALAC  or in
any joint reaction from GNSO, GAC and ALAC that  might occur  (this will
be followed though on either jointly with other issues or separately)."
from AI's from ALAC meeting of 28 Sept.
https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?action_items_28_september_2010_en  

 

I am writing to you with this information and the following proposal so
that the GAC and GNSO can consider  what next steps they might wish to
take jointly or severally with that which the ALAC intends to do.  As I
also mentioned in our call the GNSO Liaison to the Joint JAS-WG is
expected to bring this matter forward at the GNSO meeting of the 8th of
October and knowledge of ALAC deliberations and AI's on this matter may
be of some interest or use to the GNSO Councils deliberations on this
JAS specific matter as well as whatever might be raised  regarding
Rec6CWG.

 

On behalf of the At-Large Community involved and/or interested in these
WG activities conducted since Nairobi and  deadlined to feed into the
Board Retreat  where they were considering the new gTLD program
Application Guidelines etc.,  ALAC will be writing to the Board and
Senior staff involved, to requesting some information and materials that
we trust will help us (as well as the WG participants and wider ICANN
Community) the rational to the resolutions of the Board regarding the
Reports provided, as well as some information as to depth and time taken
in deliberation of the recommendations  from the community (specifically
the Consensus ones, but also those with Strong Support) by the Board and
for any information and/or explanation we can be given to assist our
understanding in the decisions outlined in those resolutions, we will
also be requesting access to and prompt delivery of the Board briefing
materials and staff briefings on these substantial reports,  (the Board
Books) under the previously announced intentions and guidelines for
these publications, (since Brussels)  noting that  at this stage the
community has not had access to the Aug meetings materials  and if a
similar delay was seen with this retreat / meeting we would still be
requesting information, explanation and assistance towards our
understanding as we go into the Catagena meeting.  We have also been
requested to write to the ATRT with these concerns and with copy of the
requests we make.

 

There is concern in our community that the briefings and staff advice
given to the Board may not have done justice to the degree of
information  and the specifics of the various recommendations in these
reports,  nor that sufficient time or debate was allocated to them and
we will be seeking assurances and information to disprove or otherwise
these fears.

 

My proposal to GNSO and GAC  is that with the knowledge of how our AC is
planning to proceed and brief outline on some of the matters we wish to
address,  would GNSO and/or GAC  like to collaborate and proceed  in
these inquiries and analysis as a joint activity?  It is our belief that
particularly where we were jointly operating as Chartering Organisations
or in Cross Community mode this would be quite advantageous and if GNSO
and/or GAC  do wish to do so the ALAC and I look forward to the
opportunity to continue to build better and more robust models for
multi-stakeholderism and bottom up consensus built policy processes in
ICANN.

 

Chuck I trust this missive is timely enough for it to be of some use to
the GNSO Council meeting on the 8th and Heather recognizing that the GAC
does not have an intersession model that matches the frequency of ALAC
and GNSO Council meeting do let me know if there is anything I can do to
assist any discussion and deliberations your AC is making on these
matters and note also that as ALAC works with all of At-Large and
at-large, we would value any individual or  partial/subset interactions
and interventions from your Members  and Constituencies, if you as SO
and AC are unable to join us in cross community collaboration on this...

 

I look forward to your Council and AC reactions to this proposals and
towards ALAC and A-Large working with you in any way deemed most
suitable and effective on this issue in the near future.  Please note
that  by our mid month ExCom meeting (held in the week of Oct 11 TBC)
where we next review our AI's I would like to have your feedback,
guidance and suggestions on how you wish to proceed. Naturally as
leadership and key representation in the ICANN Community we can I
believe work more effectively and successfully in concert and
collaboration  rather than by divided effort on this and many other
matters, and I hope your structures might see it that was as well.

 

 

 

Kindest regards,


Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO)

Chair of ALAC 2007- 2010

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20100930/0f60b32d/attachment.html>