...
The STI was not a cross-community effort. It was a GNSO group created at the request of the Board (gnso.icann.org/correspondence/beckstrom-to-gnso-council-12oct09-en.pdf) – one of those with a ridiculously short deadline and the clear threat of unilateral Board action. As per normal GNSO practice, since the ALAC had a Liaison working with Council, At-Large was given the opportunity to participate in the STI and was allocated two seats, the same as several other SGs and Constituencies. During At the Council meeting that created the STI Review Team, that was reduced to just one At-Large representative since a) it reflected very last moment, Council unilaterally reduced At-Large participation on the Council (presumably referring to the number of seats occupied) and b) the letter was directed at the GNSO Council and At-Large is to one member and one non-speaking alternate largely on the grounds that the At-Large was not part of the GNSO . This amendment was accepted as being “friendly”. At-Large was allowed a non-speaking Alternate as were the other groupsand the Liaison was not a full Council member. So the STI was FAR from a cross-community effort. That being said, once the group was formed, even with its restricted participation, the At-Large representatives were both active and effective in getting the group to reach consensus and there was certainly no discernible negative feelings to the At-Large participants within the group. It must be noted that this attitude toward At-Large had not been seen before this occurrence, or since – a very good thing.
...