[PC-NCSG] ccWG Ig

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

The fundamental point of my inability to cope with this group is the 
fact that while the draft charter say 4 per SO or AC, the co-chairs are 
allowing the notion of 4 per SG or C.

So we end up with a GNSO having the ability to send 20 commercial reps 
and 8 non commercial, while ccNSO, ALAC and the rest of them only send 
4.  Now not that many people are interested, nonetheless, the glaring 
lack of fairness makes the group illegitimate.

And this is what the conversation revolved around.  I was trying to get 
the SO/AC count to 5 - to allow for regional diversity in those 
organizations that care - plus a co-chair from each SO/AC.

I was told that 6 per SG/C would never fly.  And when I finally managed 
to get the discussion to understand the difference between SO/AC and 
SG/C I was ready to slit my own throat.  And that is when the 
conversation broke down.  By that point my ability to deal with 
saccharine sweet patronization was maxed out.

That is when I decided I did not need this - I have too much real work I 
need to do and need to shuck some of the energy wasting, soul sucking 
cruft.  The group is malformed and I do not know whether it is fixable - 
a rational charter might have helped, but that isn't going to happen.  I 
most definitely is not fixable with OCL as chair.  And while I am 
interested in the community giving advice to the staff and think we 
should have such a group, I just don't see the headpounding i would have 
to give myself as worth it for this dog's breakfast.  Besides we have 
Bill and others who have the ear of ICANN, so we do get to give advice 
and don't need this group.

We made a mistake when ALAC and NCSG, groups at different levels of 
organization created it with membership parity.  ALAC should have 5 and 
NCSG should have 1 plus our chair (i think the other SG get one, and the 
NCAs should choose among themselves for the one - and hopefully we get a 
bit of geographical spread).

In a sense, my resignation is just me doing what I should have been 
doing if the group was properly configured.  Bill is our lead rep and 
Rafik is the chair.  The rest of us can observe if we wish.
Now, I know that is not going to happen, so I figure NCSG, NCUC and NPOC 
should not limit themselves and should put in 4 each for NPOC and NCUC, 
but I don't want to be one of those, though remain happy to observe.

Incidentally the version of the charter I tried to get under discussion 
is now de-linked but is it still available in the wiki:

https://community.icann.org/display/CPMMB/Proposed+Charter+for+CWG+on+Internet+governance

As for Marila, good choice on your part, but I would personally 
recommend she avoid it like the plague.  She is going to be busy enough 
with /1net, igc, bb, irp ... and the FIG and does not need this in her 
mind as well. But she is a good choice.


avri


On 28-Jan-14 11:41, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> I?m surprised that there might be such strong disagreement on the WG charter, and sorry to hear it?! Some insight on the nature of the disagreement would be helpful.
>
> If you would like to be replaced, do you suggest someone who could pick up where you left off on charter discussions, or someone who would be more useful on the wider context?
>
> My first thoughts include Marilia. Is she on this WG?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
> On Jan 28, 2014, at 1:13 AM, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> After an extended chat with OCL over the charter, I have decided that I do not have the emotional bandwidth for the ccWG Ig.
>>
>> Please replace me on the WG.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> avri
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>