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

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Wouldn't it just split off in that event? The CWG would be closed down
and the SO/AC that wanted to continue to pursue the issue/topic would
form its own WG, which ultimately may have many of the same participants
depending on the desire/need/SOP of the SO/AC.

Tim

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: RE: [gnso-ccwg-dt] Cross community working groups
> From: john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Date: Fri, June 17, 2011 8:28 pm
> To: jonathan.robinson@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> 
> Jonathan,
> 
> I think the key administration check on behavior is the approval of a single 
> charter as the document envisions.
> 
> This will allow us to commit to the "come one, come all" approach to forming 
> the CWG.  
> 
> One additional question is this: even with a single charter, separate SOs or 
> ACs may view the work product differently.  One may want to move forward, 
> another not.  In this instance, how will this be "harmonized"?
> 
> Berard
> 
> 
> 
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [gnso-ccwg-dt] Cross community working groups
> From: "Jonathan Robinson" Does it accurately and effectively describe the 
> reason for the work.
> 2.       Does the way forward adequately cover our / your view and represent 
> a sound and comprehensive basis for GNSO and then wider consensus.
> 
> I look forward to any input or comment on this that you may be able to 
> provide ahead of Singapore.
>  
> Best wishes,
>  
>  
> Jonathan
>  
>  
> 
> 
>