[PC-NCSG] Outreach motion

[Konstantinos Komaitis]

The only thing I can say to this is that I heard in Dakar - only heard - that the Business folks would not support this exactly because of MC's initiative...they want to promote this funding thing through outreach....but all that is unverified, although it doesn't surprise me that they backed up....

KK

Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis,

Senior Lecturer,
Director of Postgraduate Instructional Courses
Director of LLM Information Technology and Telecommunications Law
University of Strathclyde,
The Law School,
Graham Hills building,
50 George Street, Glasgow G1 1BA
UK
tel: +44 (0)141 548 4306
http://www.routledgemedia.com/books/The-Current-State-of-Domain-Name-Regulation-isbn9780415477765
Selected publications: http://hq.ssrn.com/submissions/MyPapers.cfm?partid=501038
Website: www.komaitis.org<http://www.komaitis.org>

From: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org [mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org] On Behalf Of William Drake
Sent: ??????, 17 ????????? 2011 9:23 ??
To: NCSG-Policy
Cc: Mueller, Milton
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Outreach motion

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<mailto:john at crediblecontext.com>> <john at crediblecontext.com<mailto: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/e6b4ea62/attachment.html>