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

[Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear All,

Here are the links to the two attached documents that Tim refers to for easier 
reference :




1.    HSTLD Advisory Group Position Statement – Mikey O’Connor

http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/hstld-position-27may11-en.pdf



posted on page:

http://gnso.icann.org/drafts



2.    Jeff Neuman - Some principals with respect to Cross Working Groups:



http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-ccwg-dt/msg00003.html




Glen de Saint Géry
GNSO Secretariat
gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
http://gnso.icann.org

From: owner-gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
Sent: jeudi 26 mai 2011 20:17
To: Stéphane_Van_Gelder
Cc: gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx; Jaime Wagner - PowerSelf
Subject: RE: [gnso-ccwg-dt] Cross community working groups

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 
<stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx><http://stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx%3e>;
Date: Mon, May 23, 2011 4:32 am
To: Jaime Wagner - PowerSelf 
<jaime@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:jaime@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Cc: <gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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<mailto:jaime@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Direto (51) 3219-5955  Cel (51) 8126-0916
Geral  (51) 3233-3551
www.powerself.com.br<http://www.powerself.com.br/>

De: owner-gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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<mailto: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.