RE: [council] Fwd: The proposed ccNSO Assistance Group

["Jonathan Cohen" <jcohen@shapirocohen.com>]

Dear Peter,
As old friends and sometimes 'opponents' in this process of ICANN building
we both know it certainly is easy to become cynical.Many mistakes have been
made and many 'misinterpretations'have clouded intentions and issues.
Your letter is everything I would expect from an experienced Barrister,it is
clear and reasoned and makes no 'direct' accusations.However,There has been
a slow melt down of trust in this process.It is not due only to the conduct
of "one side"
I know you can play an important role here and now. I hope we can count on
you to help rebuild trust and ICANN.
 I am not here to throw any stones (glass igloo and all) but to suggest that
maybe the "politics" could be ramped down by all?
Im listening as is all the Board
Jonathan



-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@dnso.org [mailto:owner-council@dnso.org]On Behalf Of
Elisabeth Porteneuve
Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2002 8:33 PM
To: council@dnso.org
Subject: [council] Fwd: The proposed ccNSO Assistance Group



Fyi.
====================================================================
From: "Peter Dengate Thrush" <barrister@chambers.gen.nz>
To: "'Alejandro Pisanty'" <apisan@servidor.unam.mx>, <reform@icann.org>
Cc: <cctld-adcom@wwtld.org>, <cctld-discuss@wwtld.org>,
        "Nancy Victory" <nvictory@ntia.doc.gov>,
        "Robin Layton" <rlayton@ntia.doc.gov>, <ga@dnso.org>,
<lynn@icann.org>
Subject: [ga] The proposed ccNSO Assistance Group
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 07:36:59 +1200



Dear Alex,


The adcom has been approached by the North American and South American
representatives with the news that your committee has privately requested
that they agree to serve on an Assistance Group your committee is proposing
to form. A copy of  one of your invitation letters is pasted below.

You will understand how confusing and even distressing this is to us, as you
undertook in two conversations with us, when we proposed the formation of
such a group to you, that you would have further discussions with us on a
number of matters. One of those was the formation of such a group, in which
case we had suggested that the Adcom or its nominees would be the
appropriate cctld representatives. A second issue was the nature of the
mandate of any such group, and in particular its ability to "bridge" the
current gap between the ccSO designed after a bottom-up process by the
cctlds, and the ccNSO proposed in the Blueprint apparently without reference
to the cctld consensus.

The two representatives of the adcom you have approached have indicated to
us that they need Adcom approval if they are to accept your invitations to
serve.

We understand because of the time pressure placed on them in your request,
several may have already provided you with an answer, before our
deliberations on this have concluded.
If the matter is as urgent as your behaviour indicates, we wonder why there
has been silence from you since our calls last month, and why you are yet to
reply to our follow up enquiry of August 30.

To allow Adcom to make a decision on the matter, and to advise the other
cctld
managers we understand you have also privately approached, we ask for
answers to the following questions:

1. Do you intend to continue discussing the formation of an assistance group
with the cctld representatives, or are those discussions discontinued on
your part?

2. Which cctld managers have you picked to be on your group, and what are
the principles by which that selection was made?

3. Which other non- cctld representatives have you thought it appropriate to
add to your  group, and what are the criteria you have developed and applied
in your selection process?

4. What is the mandate of the assistance group, and particularly, is
bridging the gap between the cctld consensus position and the Blueprint
ruled out?

You will understand the temptation for the Adcom to regard this group as a
top down device, cynically designed to provide evidence of support for the
Blueprint from a constituency of ICANN that has publicly opposed several
major features of the Blueprint. You will understand the dilemma your
conduct poses to cctlds, who in the main continue to be supporters of a
White paper principles-based ICANN, and who oppose your procedures and
conclusions but nevertheless wonder whether it might be appropriate to take
one more (possibly final) chance to contribute to the shared ideal.

The difficulty they face is in accepting appointment to a position which
seems
to be limited to implementing something the cctlds have articulated clear
consensus disagreement with.

The answers to our questions will be of assistance in advising our members,
and we look forward to hearing from you.

Regards

ccTLD adcom



****************************************************************************

> From: Theresa Swinehart [mailto:swinehart@icann.org]
> Sent: September 6, 2002 2:17 PM
> To: turcotte@cira.ca
> Cc: Alejandro Pisanty
> Subject: invitation from Alejandro Pisanty, ERC Chair, to participate in
> the ccNSO Assistance Group
>
>
> Alejandro Pisanty, chair of the ERC, asked me to send the appended
> note on his behalf.
>
> ********************
>
> Dear Bernie,
>
> As the Chair of the ERC, I am writing to ask whether you would be
> willing to participate in a Assistance Group we are establishing
> to assist in coming up with recommendations on the details of the
> ccNSO that is, to assist the ERC on the formation of the ccNSO
> as part of ICANN's reformed structure.
> The ERC is extending invitations to this Assistance Group to a
> variety of ccTLD managers,  including two from the AdCom, as well
> as members of the non-ccTLD manager community. This is consistent
> with the planned structure of the ccNSO Council according to
> the Blueprint for Reform. A full list of participants will be
> available upon confirmation of acceptance from all
> invitees. The bulk of the Assistance Group work will occur in the
> month of September, with the objective to incorporate outcomes
> into the third Interim
> Report of the ERC, currently scheduled to be completed around 1
> October.
>
> The charge for this group is to provide the ERC with recommendations
> in relation to the ccNSO within the framework of the Blueprint. The
> Blueprint outlines the overall structure of the ccNSO, but still requires
> details on the membership of the council and membership of the ccNSO;
> the scope of the ccNSO, and the process of policy development in the
> ccNSO. The Assistance Group's recommendations will be given great
> weight and careful consideration by the ERC, but the ERC of course
> reserves the right to make adjustments or modifications in formulating
> its final recommendations to the Board and the community.
>
> It is important to note that the role of the Assistance Group is not
> to re-argue decisions already made by the ICANN Board as embodied in
> the Blueprint, nor to be an advocacy platform at all. It is intended to
> provide the considered input of knowledgeable people in making
> recommendations to the ERC for developing the ccNSO within the
> framework outlined in the Blue Print. It is not intended to be
> a vehicle for determining or recording community-wide consensus.
> You are free, of course, to take any positions on any subjects,
> including this one, in other fora, but this Assistance Group
> is solely to help the ERC with the ccNSO within the boundaries defined
> by the Blueprint.
>
> The existence and membership of this Assistance Group, and the limits
> of its charge, will be announced by the ERC, upon confirmation of all
> invitees.
> The work product of the Assistance Group will be posted upon its receipt
> by the ERC. In its review of the recommendations, the ERC will explain
> any differences between the input received and the recommendations that
> it ultimately offers to the community.  If there are any differences,
> members of the working group will of course be completely free to
> comment on those as they see fit, as indeed are any members of the
> community, that is, your autonomy or freedom to speak by participating
> in this effort is not inhibited. Your work is simply a voluntary
> contribution to the considerable implementation work that the ERC
> is now undertaking, and only in the context of that work are you
> constrained by the framework of the Blueprint.
>
> With regard to timing, the Assistance Group will be working on a fast-
> track, with completion of recommendations on 25 September. The ERC has
> just posted its second Interim Implementation Report, and the work of
> this Assistance Group will contribute to the output of the third and final
> Implementation Report, which will be the basis for final ERC
> recommendations to the Board at the ICANN meeting in Shanghai.
> That third report, for which the recommendations are relevant,
> is to be completed on or about 1 October. So there is little time.
>
> We have chosen the members of this group based on their interest and
> ability. It is the ERC's hope that the invitees will seek in a
> collegial way to produce truly workable processes that will serve
> the ICANN community well, and will neither advantage nor
> disadvantage any particular part of that community.
>
> If you are willing to assist the ERC, and accept this charge, as
> described, please let me know as soon as possible. The ERC has
> asked Theresa Swinehart to be the point of contact to assist the
> ERC in the coordinating the work of this Assistance Group.
> Please copy her on your response as well. We would hope to announce
> the formation of this group no later than early next week.
> Thank you for your consideration.
>
> Alejandro Pisanty
> ERC Chair
>
>