RE: [gnso-ccwg-dt] Comments on the 22 Nov 2011 version

[Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

And my reply...

At 06/12/2011 07:19 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> Please see my comments and suggestions below in response to Alan's input.
>
> Chuck
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-ccwg-
> > dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
> > Sent: Monday, December 05, 2011 11:53 PM
> > To: gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: [gnso-ccwg-dt] Comments on the 22 Nov 2011 version
> >
> >
> >
> > >1.i To provide information and recommendations to the chartering
> > >organizations.
> >
> > I think that this is a bit insular. Surely at least in some cases,
> > the purpose will be to provide information and recommendations to the
> > wider ICANN community, even if to get their they need to be approved
> > by the chartering bodies. DSSA is a good example.
>
> [Gomes, Chuck] I understand Alan's point but also believe that we 
> need to be careful to avoid the CWG from becoming an a policy 
> influencing body independent of the official policy development 
> organizations.  Here is one way of possibly dealing with this (with 
> my changes in CAPS):  Change 1.i to " To provide information and 
> recommendations to the chartering organizations IN ACCORDANCE WITH 
> THE CHARTER OR DIRECTIONS FROM THE CHARTERING ORGANIZATIONS."  Cases 
> that Allen is concerned about could be dealt with up-front, if 
> anticipated, by allowing for them in the charter.  In the event of 
> unanticipated cases, which will likely occur, the CWG could request 
> permission from the chartering organizations.  To cover the latter, 
> the charter could have a procedure for the CWG to quickly obtain 
> permission for communications to groups other than the chartering 
> organizations.
[AG] This seems to be aimed at allowing direct communications where 
it is ultimately needed. I have no problem with that (others do), but 
it was not the thrust of my comment, which  was to say that the 
motivation for a CWG may be wider than just feeding back to the 
chartering org. It is not at all clear that DSSA will make 
recommendations that will need to be acted on by the ALAC or the 
GNSO, other than to endorse them (or not). BUt the purpose of that 
CWG was to investigate something of overall interest to ICANN and it 
was felt that a CWG would be a good vehicle.

> >
> >
> > >1.ii A discussion forum to achieve greater community understanding
> > >either prior to a PDP to help define issues and concerns, or
> > >following a PDP to provide implementation recommendations or related
> > guidance.
> >
> > This sounds like this would be the prime reason for starting a CWG
> > and in reality, that may not be the case (again, look at DSSA).
> > Perhaps changing "Purpose" to "Possible Purposes could include" would
> > fix it.
>
> [Gomes, Chuck] At first glance, this change seems okay to me.
>
> >
> >
> > >1.a.i Apply appropriate SO WG Guidelines to all CWGs whenever
> > possible.
> >
> > At the very least, SO should be AC/SO as in other cases. But the word
> > "applicable" also comes to mind.
>
> [Gomes, Chuck] I am fine with both changes: "Apply applicable AC/SO 
> WG Guidelines . . ."
> >
> >
> > Alan
> >