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

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

How would you change the wording Alan?

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2011 12:25 PM
> To: Gomes, Chuck; gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-ccwg-dt] Comments on the 22 Nov 2011 version
> 
> 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.
> > >