[PC-NCSG] ccWG Ig

[Amr Elsadr]

Hi Avri,

Thanks for the brief. Representation issues were bound to become a problem considering that the CCWG decided to include position statements in its charter, which might very well lead to a lack of consensus. With consensus levels similar to those in the GNSO WG Guidelines, this makes numbers of representatives matter a great deal.

I would think the concept of 6/SG in the GNSO and 6 for every other AC/SO would be reasonable, if some folks (CSG) are willing to make compromises. It would have been more helpful if the WG had decided to limits its chartered mandate to advocating the multi-stakeholder model and ensuring participation of the ICANN community in the upcoming event, while leaving position statements out of it and let SGs/Cs/SOs/ACs work out their own positions independently.

I don?t know if ?positions? are discussed on the CCWG calls, or not. The messages on the list seem to be largely limited to organising doodle polls, apologies to attending calls, organising a f2f in Geneva, and other non-substantive issues. I don?t think I?ll be able to go through transcripts and/or recordings of calls (are there any??), but when those take place (or if they actually are), disparate representation will be a problem.

Avri, can?t really blame you for wanting to punch out. There must be other interested members out there who are willing to become more involved. The NCSG members I see active on 1Net seem to include Milton, Adam, Marilia, David, Joanne, Klaus and Jorge (leaving out Avri and Bill who are already involved with the CCWG). Robin is also an obvious potential. Perhaps a call on the NCSG list (or separately on the constituency lists) for volunteers?? Has there been one? I don?t recall.

Anyway?, I doubt that I am suggesting anything you all haven?t considered before.

Just thought I?d offer some thoughts.

Thanks.

Amr

On Jan 28, 2014, at 6:13 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

> 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
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg