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

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Alan,

Why wouldn't the changes I proposed work for the DSSA example?

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2011 10:34 AM
> To: Gomes, Chuck; gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [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.
>