...
Yrjo: I agree with that plan.
Cheryl: I think this the draft is a great introduction. Now we need to insert the actual changes to the Bylaws. These changes should reflect a certain equality in the principled treatment of the ACs. We all agree how bizarre it is that, first, the ACs are treated differently by the Board and, second, that even the GAC’s own interaction with the Board is understood differently by different components. We want clear, understood guidelines regarding how the components of ICANN (especially the ACs) interact. The ATRT, of course, is looking at the GAC, which makes the position of the other ACs all the more precarious.
Evan: Do people feel our goal is to clone the revisions recommended by the ATRT to the GAC guidelines onto the ALAC or is it more to fashion what we think would work best for us, which could even be used as a model for the GAC revisions. ?
Cheryl: Certainly the latter.
...
Cheryl: Evan, I think the example you cite and the questions it raises are relevant to cite in WT A’s suggested ALAC public comment on the ATRT. We now have cross-constituency work being done and WGs being created by the GNSO, GAC, ALAC, etc. But this cross-constituency recommendation regarding Rec. 6 was not seen as legitimate by ICANN’s Board Chair. And only because the ACs then supported the recommendation did this change. Even though this cross-constituency activity is very beneficial for our multi-stakeholder model, there is actually no set, predictable mechanism for creating such cross-constituency activity, recognizing it, or reporting it. Similarly, WT A’s recommended ALAC statement on the ATRT draft recommendations should clarify the role of Staff.
Evan: That’s exactly right. I don’t want repeated what, for example, happened in the Summit. We broke up into separate work groups that came up with quite constructive recommendations. But nothing ever came out of it beyond, perhaps, we got our getting a thank-you.
Cheryl: Yes, since everyone gets busy, there must be a set procedure or flowchart on the books that determines exactly what happens and who does it when, for example, such recommendations come up from the constituency.
...
Evan: Or from a corporate entity, such as AT&T, which I’ve seen during some public comment periods.
...
>> AI: Yrjo to draft revisions to At-Large-relevant Bylaw passages (including but not only XI, 2, 4, a) that incorporate WT B’s 18 Nov 2010 discussion ideas (see 18 Nov minutes, agenda item 5), including:
...
The members of the WT agreed that the next meeting would be on Thu, 2 Dec, 18:00 UTC.
The meeting was adjourned.