[Internal-cg] URGENT, suggested poll.

Paul Wilson pwilson at apnic.net
Tue Jul 29 01:46:08 UTC 2014


My own views are as follows:

- We made a decision in London for 3 co-chairs.  It was not unanimous, but it was clear, declared and minuted.
- The decision was altered in an online discussion which must be described as “ad hoc” since it took place place prior to any setting of expectations on participation or decision processes.
- That alteration has been since challenged strongly.
- I feel that under these circumstances the London decision must stand.

The substance of the decision itself is important, since it is seen to be related to the diversity and fairness of the ICG and its decision processes.  Even if this is a perception only, or without practical consequences, it is a significant one which I feel must sway us towards the more diverse and “fair" solution, namely 3 co-chairs as initially decided.

Thanks,

Paul.




________________________________________________________________________
Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC                      <dg at apnic.net>
http://www.apnic.net                                     +61 7 3858 3100

See you at APNIC 38!                      http://conference.apnic.net/38





On 29 Jul 2014, at 1:06 am, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> wrote:

> Hi Jean-Jacques,
> 
> Thanks for your note. Comments are below, in-line.
> 
> 
> On 7/27/14, 2:50 AM, "Subrenat, Jean-Jacques" <jjs at dyalog.net> wrote:
> 
>> Good morning Alissa,
>> Hello Colleagues,
>> 
>> The Chair of the ALAC has asked me to bring to your attention the
>> following:
>> 
>> 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.
> 
> I’m happy to send an acknowledgment of the receipt of the letter to
> Olivier if that is what he is expecting. I have not engaged with some of
> the constituencies present here before, including ALAC, so forgive me for
> learning on the fly. I’ll do that now.
> 
> I would say that as a general matter (and for the sake of the sanity of us
> all!), allowing at least 24 hours for a response to anything — and 72
> hours for responses to weekend emails — should be considered acceptable
> going forward. Personally I know that I will definitely have times when my
> day job responsibilities will push the edges of those deadlines.
> 
> 
>> 
>> 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
>> Co-Chairs.
> 
> I guess I’m not quite seeing the distinctions you are drawing here. The
> process we followed in London was a bit makeshift and ad hoc itself, no?
> And as others have pointed out on this thread, the session on this topic
> concluded with three hums wherein one had
> more support than the others, but there was no unanimity (see p. 195 of
> the day 2 transcript [1]).
> 
> Furthermore, one point on which I believe the group does have very strong
> agreement is that we should operate by rough consensus, so unanimity is
> not a bar that we need to meet on every decision (of course it’s always
> nice when we can).
> 
> 
>> 
>> 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.
> 
> As mentioned in my mail about the poll, I think it behooves us to
> determine a leadership structure that is broadly supported within the
> group. The poll is a way for us to gain information about that question.
> If, as you say, there is broad support for the three co-chairs option,
> then the poll will give us confidence to confirm that, bolstering the hum
> that was taken in London. I don’t see how having less information about
> what leadership structure the group desires helps us.
> 
> Best,
> Alissa
> 
> [1] 
> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/transcript-coordination-group-1
> 8jun14-en.pdf
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> 
>> 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




More information about the Internal-cg mailing list