ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


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

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

  • To: Gabriela Szlak <gabrielaszlak@xxxxxxxxx>, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Re: Council voted to approve Charter for CCWG today
  • From: "Fares, David" <DFares@xxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 14:22:52 +0000

Likewise, thanks Gabi.

From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
Gabriela Szlak
Sent: 13 November 2014 13:13
To: Steve DelBianco
Cc: BC List; skawaguchi@xxxxxx
Subject: [bc-gnso] Re: Council voted to approve Charter for CCWG today


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 

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 
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.

This message and its attachments may contain legally privileged or confidential 
information. It is intended solely for the named addressee. If you are not the 
addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message 
to the addressee), you may not copy or deliver this message or its attachments 
to anyone. Rather, you should permanently delete this message and its 
attachments and kindly notify the sender by reply e-mail. Any content of this 
message and its attachments that does not relate to the official business of 
Twenty-First Century Fox, Inc. or its subsidiaries must be taken not to have 
been sent or endorsed by any of them. No representation is made that this email 
or its attachments are without defect.

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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy