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

["Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>]

hi all,

i'm with Chuck on this one -- the folks who chartered the DSSA made it nicely 
clear what their expectations were from us.  they told us to go look at 
something of broad interest to the community, spread the word far and wide 
about what we are doing and come back to the AC/SO's with a report when we 
finished.  all of that is contained in our charter and was thought through in 
advance.  

the thing i really like about that is that it provides us co-chairs a really 
crisp definition of what our sponsors want from us, and really clear direction 
on how to interact with the community.  good chartering is key to this stuff.  
if the charter is murky, it's important that the WG leadership group head back 
to the sponsors for clarification and approval.  otherwise the WG can find 
itself improvising -- and running into trouble if they make bad calls.

i like have the aircover of a good charter that's endorsed by the AC/SOs (i can 
lose the word "deep" by the way -- it just worked that morning when i was 
writing those do's and don'ts).  i'll drop a reply on to that thread too.

mikey


On Dec 6, 2011, at 11:10 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> 
> 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.
>> 
> 
> 

- - - - - - - - -
phone   651-647-6109  
fax             866-280-2356  
web     http://www.haven2.com
handle  OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)