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

[tim@xxxxxxxxxxx]

Ditto
-----Original Message-----
From: <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2011 10:44:32 
To: Wendy Seltzer<wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <jonathan.robinson@xxxxxxxxxxx>; <gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx>; 
Stéphane_Van_Gelder<stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [gnso-ccwg-dt] Cross community working groups

I am in Wendy's boat.  Didn't get the first, got the follow-up.


Berard
 
 -------- Original Message --------
 Subject: Re: [gnso-ccwg-dt] Cross community working groups
 From: Wendy Seltzer <wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx> >
 Date: Thu, June 02, 2011 10:38 am
 To: Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx&gt 
<http://stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx&gt> ;
 Cc: jonathan.robinson@xxxxxxxxxxx <http://jonathan.robinson@xxxxxxxxxxx> , 
gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx
 
 
 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 
 >> <http://jonathan.robinson@xxxxxxxxxxx> ]
 >> Sent: 01 June 2011 17:12
 >> To: 'gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx <mailto: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>  
 >> [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 <mailto: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.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
 >> http://gnso.icann.org
 >>
 >> From: owner-gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx <mailto: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 <mailto: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&gt 
 >> <http://stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx&gt> ;;
 >> 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.
 >>
 >>
 >>
 >>
 >>
 >> 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 <mailto: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/