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

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

Confirmed.

Thanks.

Stéphane



Le 2 juin 2011 à 10:07, Jonathan Robinson a écrit :

> All,
>  
> Would appreciate confirmation that from the anyone on the CCWG Team that this 
> has been received. 
>  
> I didn’t receive it but suspect that is because I am the sender.
>  
> Many thanks,
>  
> Jonathan
>  
> From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jonathan.robinson@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: 01 June 2011 17:12
> To: 'gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx'
> Cc: 'Stéphane Van Gelder'
> Subject: RE: [gnso-ccwg-dt] Cross community working groups
>  
> Hello All,
>  
> I have started to work up a document that covers some of the prior points.  
> If I have missed something, please let me know.
>  
> Key questions:
>  
> 1.       Is this going in the right direction in terms of both structure AND 
> content?
> (N.B. Not all of what’s in the working doc now needs to be shared as the 
> ultimate discussion document)
> 2.       Is the scope of the document as it currently stands sufficient?
> 3.       What is the best method or tools we can use to further develop and 
> enhance this document in the couple of weeks ahead?
> (Perhaps the use of the comments and/or red-lining is best but ideally, we 
> should be editing a single version)
>  
> Any other input welcome.
>  
> Best wishes,
>  
>  
> Jonathan
>  
> From: owner-gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On 
> Behalf Of Glen de Saint Géry
> Sent: 27 May 2011 19:23
> To: Tim Ruiz; Stéphane_Van_Gelder
> Cc: gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx; Jaime Wagner - PowerSelf
> Subject: RE: [gnso-ccwg-dt] Cross community working groups
>  
> 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
> 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>;
> 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