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

["Jonathan Robinson" <jonathan.r@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Stéphane,

 

Happy to have a slot to give an update as to where we are but document
probably needs more work / discussion before circulation to council for
discussion.

 

How does that sound?

 

Jonathan

 

From: owner-gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder
Sent: 03 June 2011 17:31
To: jonathan.robinson@xxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-ccwg-dt] Cross community working groups

 

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>
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 

 <http://www.powerself.com.br/> 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>

 

 

  _____  

This email has been scanned by Netintelligence
http://www.netintelligence.com/email

  _____  

 

  _____  

This email has been scanned by Netintelligence
http://www.netintelligence.com/email

  _____  



__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 6176 (20110603) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com



______________________________________________        
This email has been scanned by Netintelligence        
http://www.netintelligence.com/email