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

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

And we don't want to forget about Liz's document. It is an excellent
resource to help us not miss the issues.

Tim 
 
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [gnso-ccwg-dt] Cross community working groups
From: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, May 26, 2011 1:17 pm
To: "Stéphane_Van_Gelder" <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx, "Jaime Wagner - PowerSelf"
<jaime@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Right, and I think this group should first come to general agreement on
the principles, rules, parameters for CWGs and then wider agreement from
the other SOs and ACs. Once we have a set of principles we all generally
agree with, we can work on the necessary bylaw changes that may be
needed to serve as recommendations for the Board.

Also, I think it was Jonathan that suggested a SWOT (Strengths,
Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats) analysis to get us going. I'm
not sure we need a full blown one, but I think generally it could be a
could structure for our report.
 
Finally, since it's been some time since we've been discussing this on
the list I thought I would attach two documents. One is the document
created by Mike O'Conner based on his experience in the HSTLD group. I
think he makes some very useful suggestions, especially for a CWG
chartering process (or for any other for that matter). The other
document is a text copy of the email note that Jeff Neuman sent
regarding some principles that he felt were important, and that I happen
to agree with.

Perhaps next step would be to assign the "pen" to one of us to begin
putting a report together, updating and circulating periodically based
on discussions.
 
 
Tim 
 
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [gnso-ccwg-dt] Cross community working groups
From: Stéphane_Van_Gelder <"
target=_blank>stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>;
Date: Mon, May 23, 2011 4:32 am
To: Jaime Wagner - PowerSelf <jaime@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <gnso-ccwg-dt@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.