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

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

Thanks Jonathan.

Best,

Stéphane



Le 31 mai 2011 à 13:25, Jonathan Robinson a écrit :

> All,
>  
> You can expect to see a first draft of the discussion document circulated 
> tomorrow.
>  
> Best wishes,
>  
>  
> Jonathan
>  
> From: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: 27 May 2011 10:06
> To: <jonathan.robinson@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: <gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [gnso-ccwg-dt] Cross community working groups
>  
> Thanks Jonathan. You're holding the pen on this, is that correct?
>  
> Stéphane
> 
> Envoyé de mon iPhone4
> 
> Le 26 mai 2011 à 20:30, "Jonathan Robinson" <jonathan.robinson@xxxxxxxxxxx> a 
> écrit :
> 
> Thanks Tim,
>  
> I’ll aim to put a little time into this tomorrow, read your attachment and 
> see if there is a route to map out in the very short time between now & 
> Singapore.
>  
> Any additional suggestions and/or input very welcome.
>  
> Best,
>  
> Jonathan
>  
> From: owner-gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On 
> Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
> Sent: 26 May 2011 19:17
> 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>;
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
>  
>  
> This email has been scanned by Netintelligence
> http://www.netintelligence.com/email
>  
> This email has been scanned by Netintelligence
> http://www.netintelligence.com/email
> 
> 
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature 
> database 6155 (20110526) __________
> 
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
> 
> http://www.eset.com