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

[Wendy Seltzer <wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I received Stephane's response, but not Jonathan's original message. If 
there was an attachment, please send it to me, thanks!
--Wendy

On 06/02/2011 01:25 PM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
> 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
--
Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx +1 914-374-0613
Fellow, Princeton Center for Information Technology Policy
Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html
https://www.chillingeffects.org/
https://www.torproject.org/
http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/