RE: [gnso-ccwg-dt] Re: RESEND re: Revised Draft Principles/Next Call

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Mainly I have been just following the good work you are all doing, but
wanted to comment here. If Mikey does have it right, then I agree with
him that both are a bad idea and in fact are contrary to the whole point
of having separate SOs and ACs in the first place. IMO, where any CWG
recommendation or other output touches on policy issues under the
purview of one or more SO it MUST be in some form ratified by the
relevant SOs in keeping with their existing policy development
processes.

Tim

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [gnso-ccwg-dt] Re: RESEND re: Revised Draft
> Principles/Next Call
> From: "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Wed, November 23, 2011 10:19 am
> To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Chuck Gomes <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>,        "gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx"
> <gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx>,        Wendy Seltzer <wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> here's my interpretation (FWIW)
> 
> the provision to be overridden is 2, b, c -- "CWGs' output must not be taken 
> as an expression of community consensus, except as it may be endorsed as such 
> by its chartering organization."
> 
> so the provision limits the result to being purely internal to the CWG and 
> should not be viewed as community consensus/policy until it has gone back 
> through the chartering AC/SOs for review/approval.
> 
> the language proposes that this could be overridden in the charter -- so 
> presumably the CWG would then be empowered to speak for the whole community 
> directly, rather than through the respective AC/SO's (which i think is a bad 
> idea).
> 
> furthermore it's saying that people outside the WG would then lose their 
> ability to object (which, by inference i also think is a bad idea).
> 
> have i got that right?  
> 
> mikey
> 
> 
> On Nov 23, 2011, at 10:09 AM, Julie Hedlund wrote:
> 
> Re: RESEND re: Revised Draft Principles/Next Call
> 
> 
> Chuck,
> 
> This was text that Wendy sent to the list immediately after the call 
> yesterday and I added to the document for discussion/consideration.  Thus, 
> I�ll defer to Wendy concerning your questions.
> 
> Thanks,
> Julie
> 
> 
> On 11/23/11 11:04 AM, "Chuck Gomes" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> Thanks Julie.
>  
> Forgive my denseness but I am having trouble understanding the following 
> rationale for 2.c) iii): �A CWG's charter could override that provision, with 
> explicit reference, giving people notice that unless they participated in the 
> CWG, they'd risk losing opportunity to object.�  What provision could be 
> overridden?  Are we considering suggesting that people could lose their 
> opportunity to object if they don�t participate in the CWG?  I�d like to 
> think not, but it sure sounds that way to me.
>  
> Chuck
>  
> 
> From: owner-gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On 
> Behalf Of Julie Hedlund
> Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2011 5:11 PM
> To: gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [gnso-ccwg-dt] RESEND re: Revised Draft Principles/Next Call
>  
> All,
> 
> It seems like the Word document may have been corrupted in transit.  I�m 
> resending it.
> 
> Thanks,
> Julie
> 
> 
> On 11/22/11 5:07 PM, "Julie Hedlund" <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> All,
> 
> Here are some brief notes from today�s call concerning the revisions to the 
> Draft Principles.  The revised document is attached in Word and PDF and also 
> is posted to the wiki at 
> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsoccwgdraftteam/5.+Background+Documents.
>    The redline/tracked changes indicate those changes that were suggested 
> during the call or immediately after.  Please let me know if you have any 
> questions.  Your additional edits to the document are welcome and encouraged!
> 
> Our next call is scheduled for Tuesday, 06 December at UTC/1200 PST/1500 
> EST/2000 London/2100 CET.  A reminder will be send prior to the call. 
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Julie
> 
> Attendees:  Jonathan Robinson (Chair), Chuck Gomes Alan Greenberg, Mikey 
> O�Conner, Wendy Seltzer, Jaime Wagner; Staff: Julie Hedlund, Liz Gasster, and 
> Nathalie Peregrine
> 
> General Comments:
> Accept changes suggested by John and Chuck unless otherwise noted 
> Add outline numbering throughout (as reference below) 
> Note that since rationale will be included in the final document (not only 
> for WG use) then the language should be made parallel and details added. 
> Consider whether to use �should� or �must� (suggestion in chat room by Wendy)
> 
> 1. Scope of CWGs:
> a) Change �Limit purpose to� to �Purpose�
> i) Delete �and/or to ICANN staff�
> 
> 2. Operations of CWGs:
> 
> a) Formation of CWGs: 
> ii) Consider adding �whenever possible� and bracket for further discussion. 
> Could include a situation where you had a ccNSO/GNSO WG where you had some 
> issues of common interest and others that were not, or where a separate set 
> of rules might apply.  There could be issues where there might be a separate 
> set of rules.  However, others asked why more than one set of rules might 
> apply.  Marked for discussion on the next call.  Also, add language suggested 
> by Mikey that indicates that the charter defines the rules and procedures for 
> the CWG. 
> 
> b) Execution of CWGs:
> i) Why �as appropriate�?  Suggested revision: �CWGs should follow the 
> approved charter and bring concerns back to all chartering organizations for 
> resolution according to their respective processes.�
> 
> c) Outcomes of CWGs
> i) Suggested revision: �Policy recommendations should be considered for 
> possible approval and approved through the appropriate Policy Development 
> Process.� 
> ii) Suggested revision: Delete �only� and �further� and change to �must 
> communicate�.
> iii)  Add new iii based on comments in the chat and Wendy�s follow up email 
> on the list.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - - - - - - - - -
> phone         651-647-6109  
> fax           866-280-2356  
> web   http://www.haven2.com
> handle        OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, 
> Google, etc.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>