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

["Jonathan Robinson" <jonathan.robinson@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Tim.

 

All, I have received it via the list, as has Tim.  

 

So no need to do lots of reply alls.

 

Thanks,

 

Jonathan

 

From: tim@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: 03 June 2011 09:35
To: jonathan.robinson@xxxxxxxxxxx; owner-gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-ccwg-dt] Cross community working groups

 

Got it this time.

  _____  

From: "Jonathan Robinson" <jonathan.robinson@xxxxxxxxxxx> 

Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2011 09:27:08 +0100

To: <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>; <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; 
<owner-gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx>; 'Wendy Seltzer'<wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx>

ReplyTo: <jonathan.robinson@xxxxxxxxxxx> 

Cc: <gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx>; 
'Stéphane_Van_Gelder'<stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>

Subject: RE: [gnso-ccwg-dt] Cross community working groups

 

Apparently I was accidentally omitted from being able to post to the list.

 

So, you may have missed some other prior postings from me.

 

Will re-send the original e-mail.  

 

A bit tedious I know, but please confirm receipt by “reply-all” of this and the 
next one sent from me.

 

Many thanks,

 

 

Jonathan

 

From: tim@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: 02 June 2011 18:59
To: john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; owner-gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx; Wendy Seltzer
Cc: jonathan.robinson@xxxxxxxxxxx; gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx; Stéphane_Van_Gelder
Subject: Re: [gnso-ccwg-dt] Cross community working groups

 

Ditto

  _____  

From: <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 

Sender: owner-gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx 

Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2011 10:44:32 -0700

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>
Date: Thu, June 02, 2011 10:38 am
To: Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx 
<http://stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx%3e> >;
Cc: 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]
>> 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 
>> <http://stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx%3e> >;;
>> 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/