ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[bc-gnso] Re: Council voted to approve Charter for CCWG today

  • To: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [bc-gnso] Re: Council voted to approve Charter for CCWG today
  • From: Gabriela Szlak <gabrielaszlak@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 10:12:43 -0300


I wanted to publicly thank Steve and David for their support to Susan and I
on the Accountability CCWG Charter discussions on Council today and Ron as
chair of the SCI WG for his support on the SCI motion that was also adopted
today at the Council as well.

It is a pleasure to work with the support and collaboration of this amazing
BC team.

Thank you,

*Gabriela Szlak *

*Skype:* gabrielaszlak

*Twitter: @*GabiSzlak

La información contenida en este e-mail es confidencial.
The information in this e-mail is confidential.

2014-11-13 9:10 GMT-03:00 Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

>  When Council considered the motion to approve the draft CCWG charter,
> Gabi raised the representation concern, saying:
> We agree with parity when it comes to consensus calls/voting.
> We object to disenfranchising chartered constituencies in the GNSO, which
> is the effect of limiting to 5 representatives from the GNSO.  There are 7
> chartered GNSO groups (Registries, Registrars, BC, IPC, ISPC, NCUC, NPOC).
> So 2 chartered organizations would not get a representative on the CCWG if
> it is limited to 5 reps.
>  Heather Forrest of IPC supported us.
>  Avri Doria (NCSG) disagreed with us, saying the extra reps would lead to
> chaos on CCWG.  Avri suggested the CSG chose not to have a SG structure, so
> it’s up to us to get our house in order.
>  James Bladel disagreed with us.
>  Tony Holmes supported Gabi’s concern and said we needed to address this
> issue since it will come up again.
>  Drafting team chair Thomas Rickert clarified that the charter permits
> each CONSTITUENCY to participate in every discussion and email list, even
> if the CSG gets only one vote during consensus calls
>  Gabi also raised our concern about timing:
> BC members believe that the goal, as drafted, overstates the need to meet
> the so-called deadline of September 2015.  It is more important that we get
> the right accountability enhancements, and that they are supported by the
> community.
>  Thomas replied that the charter encourages CCWG to meet the Sep-2015
> goal but is not prescriptive.  The quality of the work is the decisive
> factor.     The CCWG will determine its own outcome on the question of
> timing.
>  Council approved the Charter and also approved Thomas Rickert as GNSO
> co-chair for this CCWG.

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy