<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [gnso-ccwg-dt] Cross community working groups
- To: <jonathan.robinson@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [gnso-ccwg-dt] Cross community working groups
- From: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2011 18:30:46 +0200
Jonathan,
I think this is an excellent base from which to carry out this work. Do you
plan on discussing this during our June 9 meeting at all?
Stéphane
Le 1 juin 2011 à 18:11, Jonathan Robinson a écrit :
> 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
> <CCWGs - GNSO Discussion Document.docx>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|