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

["Jaime Wagner - PowerSelf" <jaime@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

My contributions to the document:

 

Key Questions / Issues or Concerns Arising to Date

 

3. Are there scope limitations to the proposition of new CCWGs?

[JW] Yes, Consensus Policy Development should be SO's prerrogative. But I don't 
know how to define consensus Policy.

 

4. Are GNSO Working Group rules applicable to guide CCWG working methods also?

[JW] They can be a guide, but CCWG should not have rigid procedures provided 
they avoid policy making.

 

 

6. Participation. Who participates and on what basis? 

Response: Are participants there as individuals, representatives of 
organizations or both? 

JW: Individuals indicated by orgs.

 

N.B. J N view: Members may only be participating as individuals and are not 
speaking on behalf of their company/entity/organization, nor are the speaking 
on behalf of their constituency/stakeholder group, advisory committee or SO.

[ JW]AGREE

 

Other Key Points

• Chartering and the willingness of the CCWG to work within and with reference 
to the charter.

[JW]      ARE DIFFERENT CHARTERS ALLOWED? SHOULD WE HAVE A CHARTERING PROCESS 
TO REACH A COMMON CHARTER?

 

[JW]  What if an SO invites other SOs to contribute in an already chartered WG. 
Would it fall under the general CWG category? Or it would be a particular one?

 

Jaime B. Wagner

 <mailto:jaime@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> jaime@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cel: (51)8126-0916    Geral: (51)3233-3551 

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

 

NOVIDADES POWERSELF

*  <http://www.powerself.com.br/site/lojavirtual.produtos.php?idprodtipo=3> 
Power Tasks: Gerenciador de tarefas para IPhone: 

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

 

De: owner-gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx] Em nome 
de Tim Ruiz
Enviada em: domingo, 19 de junho de 2011 01:00
Para: john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx; jonathan.robinson@xxxxxxxxxxx
Assunto: RE: [gnso-ccwg-dt] Cross community working groups

 

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
>  
>  
> 
> 
>