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

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

confirmed
Stéphane Van Gelder
Directeur Général / General manager
INDOM Group NBT France
----------------
Head of Domain Operations
Group NBT

Le 3 juin 2011 à 10:27, Jonathan Robinson a écrit :

> 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>;
> 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>;;
> >> 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/
> 
>