Re: [gnso-ccwg-dt] Cross community working groups

[Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks for getting the discussion started again on this Jaimie.

I would add a question on the actual definition of a CWG in the bylaws. 
Currently, neither GNSO nor ICANN bylaws adequately define CWGs and this means 
that these groups are automatically in some sort of grey area. Hence some of 
the problems we've seen with them.

Thanks,

Stéphane



Le 22 mai 2011 à 17:12, Jaime Wagner - PowerSelf a écrit :

> Unless I missed something, the last msg on our list was this one on march 31.
> I understood we are expected to present a first report at the Singapore 
> Meeting, but didn’t see sufficient discussions on the list.
>  
> Some views and questions by way of “keeping alive”:
>  
> 1)      CCWG reports directly to the Board should not be allowed in any 
> circumstances. Reports should be to the chartering organizations.
> 2)      Board questioning could be addressed directly to the CCWG afterwards? 
> Or questioning should also be done exclusively through the chartering orgs?
> 3)      Are there scope limitations to the proposition of new CCWGs?
> 4)      Are GNSO Working Group rules applicable to guide CCWG working methods 
> also?
> 5)      What is the process for these rules to be ratified as such?
>  
>  
> Jaime Wagner
> jaime@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Direto (51) 3219-5955  Cel (51) 8126-0916
> Geral  (51) 3233-3551 
> www.powerself.com.br
>  
> De: owner-gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx] Em 
> nome de William Drake
> Enviada em: quinta-feira, 31 de março de 2011 14:18
> Para: gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Assunto: Re: RES: RES: RES: [gnso-ccwg-dt] FW: [council] Cross community 
> working groups
>  
> Hi 
>  
> I'm in full agreement with Mr. Wagner-PowerSelf on the below points.
>  
> Cheers
>  
> Bill
>  
>  
> On Mar 31, 2011, at 3:06 PM, Jaime Wagner - PowerSelf wrote:
> 
> 
> My preference as to the liaison question: 1) Four liaisons as above; 2) Two 
> liaisons, one of each house; 2) One single liaison. But the existence of a 
> liaison or many does not preclude the CCWG which I think is a more effective 
> mechanism to foster understanding (I’m not saying agreement).
>  
> So, my position is to favor informal, individual GAC member participation in 
> CCWGs, with the consideration that they are not representing formal positions 
> of their countries but bringing an informed and legitimate point of view. 
> Moreover, the same applies to GNSO participants in these CCWGs.
> 
> 
>