[ga] The proposed ccNSO Assistance Group
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
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
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
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
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
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.
From: Theresa Swinehart [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: September 6, 2002 2:17 PM
> To: email@example.com
> Cc: Alejandro Pisanty
> Subject: invitation from Alejandro Pisanty, ERC Chair, to participate
> the ccNSO Assistance Group
> Alejandro Pisanty, chair of the ERC, asked me to send the appended
> his behalf.
> Dear Bernie,
> As the Chair of the ERC, I am writing to ask whether you would be
> participate in a Assistance Group we are establishing to assist in
> with recommendations on the details of the ccNSO that is, to assist
> on the formation of the ccNSO as part of ICANN's reformed structure.
> is extending invitations to this Assistance Group to a variety of
> managers, including two from the AdCom, as well as members of the
> manager community. This is consistent with the planned structure of
> ccNSO Council according to the Blueprint for Reform. A full list of
> participants will be available upon confirmation of acceptance from
> invitees. The bulk of the Assistance Group work will occur in the
> September, with the objective to incorporate outcomes into the third
> Report of the ERC, currently scheduled to be completed around 1
> The charge for this group is to provide the ERC with recommendations
> relation to the ccNSO within the framework of the Blueprint. The
> outlines the overall structure of the ccNSO, but still requires
> the membership of the council and membership of the ccNSO; the scope
> ccNSO, and the process of policy development in the ccNSO. The
> Group's recommendations will be given great weight and careful
> by the ERC, but the ERC of course reserves the right to make
> modifications in formulating its final recommendations to the Board
> It is important to note that the role of the Assistance Group is not
> 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
> the considered input of knowledgeable people in making recommendations
> the ERC for developing the ccNSO within the framework outlined in the
> Print. It is not intended to be a vehicle for determining or recording
> community-wide consensus. You are free, of course, to take any
> any subjects, including this one, in other fora, but this Assistance
> is solely to help the ERC with the ccNSO within the boundaries defined
> the Blueprint.
> The existence and membership of this Assistance Group, and the limits
> charge, will be announced by the ERC, upon confirmation of all
> work product of the Assistance Group will be posted upon its receipt
> 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,
> of the working group will of course be completely free to comment on
> as they see fit, as indeed are any members of the community, that is,
> autonomy or freedom to speak by participating in this effort is not
> inhibited. Your work is simply a voluntary contribution to the
> implementation work that the ERC is now undertaking, and only in the
> 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-
> with completion of recommendations on 25 September. The ERC has just
> its second Interim Implementation Report, and the work of this
> Group will contribute to the output of the third and final
> Report, which will be the basis for final ERC recommendations to the
> at the ICANN meeting in Shanghai. That third report, for which the
> recommendations are relevant, is to be completed on or about 1
> 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
> to produce truly workable processes that will serve the ICANN
> well, and will neither advantage nor disadvantage any particular part
> that community.
> If you are willing to assist the ERC, and accept this charge, as
> please let me know as soon as possible. The ERC has asked Theresa
> to be the point of contact to assist the ERC in the coordinating the
> this Assistance Group. Please copy her on your response as well. We
> hope to announce the formation of this group no later than early next
> Thank you for your consideration.
> Alejandro Pisanty
> ERC Chair
This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html