<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [gnso-ccwg-dt] Cross community working groups
- To: "Wendy Seltzer" <wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-ccwg-dt] Cross community working groups
- From: <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2011 10:44:32 -0700
<html><body><span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#000000;
font-size:10pt;"><div>I am in Wendy's boat. Didn't get the first, got the
follow-up.</div><div><br></div><div>Berard<br></div>
<blockquote id="replyBlockquote" webmail="1" style="border-left: 2px solid
blue; margin-left: 8px; padding-left: 8px; font-size:10pt; color:black;
font-family:verdana;">
<div id="wmQuoteWrapper">
-------- Original Message --------<br>
Subject: Re: [gnso-ccwg-dt] Cross community working groups<br>
From: Wendy Seltzer <<a
href="mailto:wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx";>wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx</a>><br>
Date: Thu, June 02, 2011 10:38 am<br>
To: Stéphane_Van_Gelder <<a
href="http://stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>";>stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx></a>;<br>
Cc: <a
href="http://jonathan.robinson@xxxxxxxxxxx";>jonathan.robinson@xxxxxxxxxxx</a>,
gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx<br>
<br>
<br>
I received Stephane's response, but not Jonathan's original message. If <br>
there was an attachment, please send it to me, thanks!<br>
<br>
--Wendy<br>
<br>
On 06/02/2011 01:25 PM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:<br>
> Confirmed.<br>
><br>
> Thanks.<br>
><br>
> Stéphane<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> Le 2 juin 2011 à 10:07, Jonathan Robinson a écrit :<br>
><br>
>> All,<br>
>><br>
>> Would appreciate confirmation that from the anyone on the CCWG Team
that this has been received.<br>
>><br>
>> I didn’t receive it but suspect that is because I am the sender.<br>
>><br>
>> Many thanks,<br>
>><br>
>> Jonathan<br>
>><br>
>> From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:<a
href="http://jonathan.robinson@xxxxxxxxxxx";>jonathan.robinson@xxxxxxxxxxx</a>]<br>
>> Sent: 01 June 2011 17:12<br>
>> To: '<a
href="mailto:gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx";>gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx</a>'<br>
>> Cc: 'Stéphane Van Gelder'<br>
>> Subject: RE: [gnso-ccwg-dt] Cross community working groups<br>
>><br>
>> Hello All,<br>
>><br>
>> I have started to work up a document that covers some of the prior
points. If I have missed something, please let me know.<br>
>><br>
>> Key questions:<br>
>><br>
>> 1. Is this going in the right direction in terms of both
structure AND content?<br>
>> (N.B. Not all of what’s in the working doc now needs to be shared as
the ultimate discussion document)<br>
>> 2. Is the scope of the document as it currently stands
sufficient?<br>
>> 3. What is the best method or tools we can use to further
develop and enhance this document in the couple of weeks ahead?<br>
>> (Perhaps the use of the comments and/or red-lining is best but
ideally, we should be editing a single version)<br>
>><br>
>> Any other input welcome.<br>
>><br>
>> Best wishes,<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> Jonathan<br>
>><br>
>> From: <a
href="mailto:owner-gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx";>owner-gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx</a> [<a
href="mailto:owner-gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx";>mailto:owner-gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx</a>]
On Behalf Of Glen de Saint Géry<br>
>> Sent: 27 May 2011 19:23<br>
>> To: Tim Ruiz; Stéphane_Van_Gelder<br>
>> Cc: <a
href="mailto:gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx";>gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx</a>; Jaime Wagner -
PowerSelf<br>
>> Subject: RE: [gnso-ccwg-dt] Cross community working groups<br>
>><br>
>> Dear All,<br>
>><br>
>> Here are the links to the two attached documents that Tim refers to
for easier reference :<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> 1. HSTLD Advisory Group Position Statement – Mikey O’Connor<br>
>> <a
href="http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/hstld-position-27may11-en.pdf";>http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/hstld-position-27may11-en.pdf</a><br>
>><br>
>> posted on page:<br>
>> <a
href="http://gnso.icann.org/drafts";>http://gnso.icann.org/drafts</a><br>
>><br>
>> 2. Jeff Neuman - Some principals with respect to Cross Working
Groups:<br>
>><br>
>> <a
href="http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-ccwg-dt/msg00003.html";>http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-ccwg-dt/msg00003.html</a><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> Glen de Saint Géry<br>
>> GNSO Secretariat<br>
>> <a
href="http://gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx</a><br>
>> <a href="http://gnso.icann.org";>http://gnso.icann.org</a><br>
>><br>
>> From: <a
href="mailto:owner-gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx";>owner-gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx</a> [<a
href="mailto:owner-gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx";>mailto:owner-gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx</a>]
On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz<br>
>> Sent: jeudi 26 mai 2011 20:17<br>
>> To: Stéphane_Van_Gelder<br>
>> Cc: <a
href="mailto:gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx";>gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx</a>; Jaime Wagner -
PowerSelf<br>
>> Subject: RE: [gnso-ccwg-dt] Cross community working groups<br>
>><br>
>> 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.<br>
>> 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.<br>
>><br>
>> 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.<br>
>><br>
>> 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.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> Tim<br>
>><br>
>> -------- Original Message --------<br>
>> Subject: Re: [gnso-ccwg-dt] Cross community working groups<br>
>> From: Stéphane_Van_Gelder<<a
href="http://stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>";>stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx></a>;;<br>
>> Date: Mon, May 23, 2011 4:32 am<br>
>> To: Jaime Wagner - PowerSelf<<a
href="mailto:jaime@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>jaime@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx</a>><br>
>> Cc:<<a
href="mailto:gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx";>gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx</a>><br>
>><br>
>> Thanks for getting the discussion started again on this Jaimie.<br>
>><br>
>> 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.<br>
>><br>
>> Thanks,<br>
>><br>
>> Stéphane<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> Le 22 mai 2011 à 17:12, Jaime Wagner - PowerSelf a écrit :<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> Unless I missed something, the last msg on our list was this one on
march 31.<br>
>> I understood we are expected to present a first report at the
Singapore Meeting, but didn’t see sufficient discussions on the list.<br>
>><br>
>> Some views and questions by way of “keeping alive”:<br>
>><br>
>> 1) CCWG reports directly to the Board should not be allowed in
any circumstances. Reports should be to the chartering organizations.<br>
>> 2) Board questioning could be addressed directly to the CCWG
afterwards? Or questioning should also be done exclusively through the
chartering orgs?<br>
>> 3) Are there scope limitations to the proposition of new
CCWGs?<br>
>> 4) Are GNSO Working Group rules applicable to guide CCWG working
methods also?<br>
>> 5) What is the process for these rules to be ratified as such?<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> Jaime Wagner<br>
>> <a href="mailto:jaime@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>jaime@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx</a><br>
>> Direto (51) 3219-5955 Cel (51) 8126-0916<br>
>> Geral (51) 3233-3551<br>
>> <a href="http://www.powerself.com.br";>www.powerself.com.br</a><br>
>><br>
>> De: <a
href="mailto:owner-gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx";>owner-gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx</a> [<a
href="mailto:owner-gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx";>mailto:owner-gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx</a>]
Em nome de William Drake<br>
>> Enviada em: quinta-feira, 31 de março de 2011 14:18<br>
>> Para: <a
href="mailto:gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx";>gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx</a><br>
>> Assunto: Re: RES: RES: RES: [gnso-ccwg-dt] FW: [council] Cross
community working groups<br>
>><br>
>> Hi<br>
>><br>
>> I'm in full agreement with Mr. Wagner-PowerSelf on the below
points.<br>
>><br>
>> Cheers<br>
>><br>
>> Bill<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> On Mar 31, 2011, at 3:06 PM, Jaime Wagner - PowerSelf wrote:<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> 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).<br>
>><br>
>> 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.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> This email has been scanned by Netintelligence<br>
>> <a
href="http://www.netintelligence.com/email";>http://www.netintelligence.com/email</a><br>
>><br>
>> This email has been scanned by Netintelligence<br>
>> <a
href="http://www.netintelligence.com/email";>http://www.netintelligence.com/email</a><br>
><br>
><br>
<br>
-- <br>
Wendy Seltzer -- <a href="mailto:wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx";>wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx</a> +1
914-374-0613<br>
Fellow, Princeton Center for Information Technology Policy<br>
Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University<br>
<a
href="http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html";>http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html</a><br>
<a
href="https://www.chillingeffects.org";>https://www.chillingeffects.org</a>/<br>
<a href="https://www.torproject.org";>https://www.torproject.org</a>/<br>
<a
href="http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com";>http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com</a>/<br>
<br>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote></span></body></html>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|