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

[Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Its not that they wouldn't work. My point is that this section 
addresses the motivation for forming a CWG.  The original text 
implied that it was solely for the edification of the chartering 
groups. What I was trying to get into it was that the rationale for 
creating a CWG could be a wider more global purpose. The issue of how 
it reports is covered in a later item.
At 06/12/2011 12:10 PM, 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.
> >