[PC-NCSG] Outreach motion

[William Drake]

Hi again,

Copying MM as he raised related concerns on the members list.

So, you will have seen John's message on Council backing away from the outreach motion, which we agreed merits support.

On Nov 16, 2011, at 6:53 PM, <john at crediblecontext.com> <john at crediblecontext.com> wrote:

> The BC's concerns are based on its current position that "We prefer that
> support provided is featured as support to the constituency/SG, rather
> than centralized in permanent ICANN staff?" 
> 
> The charter's call to "consolidate human and financial resources
> relating to GNSO outreach" falls well short of recognizing the
> importance of each constituencies' role on the front lines of expanding
> this multi-stakeholder, consensus-driven, bottom-up organization. And
> the charter also seems to mandate participation of groups (e.g., ALAC)
> that are outside the scope of the Council's role.
> 
> Even if consolidation and central command-and-control are ultimately the
> best way to go, we need to begin by knowing more than we do

Wow, central command-and-control sounds scary!  Interesting that CSG decides to raise this now rather than during the extended outreach drafting exercise.  Amber suggested on the call that this may be a Cade thing, which casts the proposal received from CSG about the funding to SG/constituencies in a new light.  MM may be right that's a bit of empire building.  Hard to know how they arrived at this, no discussion on their list http://forum.icann.org/lists/bc-gnso/ (although support there for UDRP status quo).

To me, there's no contradiction between SG/constituencies doing outreach and there being a focused locus for coordination and oversight at the community level, and personally I'd be happy if there were more dedicated staff resources and coherent monitoring re: outreach.  I think it'd be in our interest that there be some transparency and collective engagement rather than just handing CSG a pot of money and saying you guys go off and do what you want.  The point is to expand engagement in ICANN, not to build little empires.

So I at least will support the plan that Olga and others worked on with community input for months, rather than CSG's 11th hour 360 turn. 

Thoughts?

Bill


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20111117/793c7580/attachment.html>