[gnso-ccwg-dt] Further revised draft charter
Hello everyone, Attached is a redline of the draft charter, which shows changes made from the previous (28 Feb) version, to take into account Chuck's, Becky's and John's recent comments. Please note that I've taken the liberty of adding a limit to the number of Observers per SO/AC, to not exceed the number of Members from that SO/AC. In addition: * I haven't changed the method of appointment/selection of Participants to distinguish between Members and Observers for that purpose, as it seemed as though more DT members are comfortable with having that done per the rules of each SO/AC (if any). * I have, however, added language in the SOI section to clarify that everyone needs to submit one, whether in accordance with the rules of his/her SO/AC or that of another that has such rules. * I haven't changed the min/max number in view of the ongoing discussion on this point. Reminder please fill in the Doodle poll if you haven't already: http://doodle.com/4zur3s2auax8ivr8 (and note that you can change the time zone to yours if you hadn't done that before). Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx * One World. One Internet. * From: <Gomes>, Chuck <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Monday, March 3, 2014 9:06 AM To: Mike O'Connor <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>, "gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx> Subject: RE: [gnso-ccwg-dt] JB on the revised draft charter > Mikey, > > I lean toward having the membership limits and voting rules in the charter. > Striving for full consensus is a good goal but it is not always achievable. > Having the limits and rules in the charter provides a ready means to use them > if needed but they don¹t have to be used if not needed. > > Chuck > > > From: owner-gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On > Behalf Of Mike O'Connor > Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2014 6:21 PM > To: gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [gnso-ccwg-dt] JB on the revised draft charter > > wow. the combination of colors and capitalization make this a little > hair-raising to read kinda reminds me of a web page circa 1995 when the > author discovered color and flashing fonts. i¹d like to gently lobby for > doing markup in the Word document. it would be easier for me to follow, and > probably a lot easier for Mary to turn around a new draft. sorry to be such a > grouch on a beautiful sub-zero (Fahrenheit) Sunday. :-) > > > > the care and precision of this work is great there were a few times where it > was extremely helpful having this kind of charter rigor during the DSSA. > > > > it seems like there¹s general convergence here and i don¹t feel strongly > enough about this next point to derail the conversation over it. but here > goes > > > > if we¹re aiming the working group at working by full/unanimous consensus > anyway, do we really care a lot about membership limits, voting rules and the > like? if the WG gets down to a place where a deadlock needs to be broken by > voting, and only official people can vote, aren¹t we instead looking at an > issue that¹s in need of more refinement by the WG? i¹m not happy with the way > i¹m saying this, it¹s not very clear. but it seems like the ³full consensus² > direction reduces the need for some of that membership-strata detail. > > > > not a big point, i certainly won¹t battle it. :-) > > > > mikey > > > > > > > > On Mar 1, 2014, at 1:16 PM, john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > > I have added my comments IN ALL CAPS. > Thanks Becky, John and Mary for the quick turn-around on this. Here is my > feedback. > Is there a reason why we refer to (Co-)Chairs¹ throughout the charter. Why > not call them Co-Chairs¹? I agree/AS DO I > Is it correct to assume that the Co-Chairs will be appointed from the Members > of the WG, in other words, they would be allowed to vote? It might be good to > clarify this. In my opinion, if the co-chairs represent their SO or AC, then > they should be allowed to vote by simply taking off their co-chair hast when > doing so; otherwise, the SO/AC would lose one of their voices when voting > occurs. On the other hand, if the co-chairs are expected to serve > specifically in a completely neutral capacity, then they would not need to > vote; in such a case though, I don¹t think they should be included in the > Minimum and Maximum Member numbers. I think it would be helpful to clarify > these issues in the charter. Yes the co-chairs will be selected from the > members and by the members/AGREED > I assume that they would be allowed to vote/YES > although the question itself reflects an interesting difference in approach > between the ccnso and the gnso/DON¹T WANT TO FOCUS ON THOSE PESKY DIFFERENCE > AT THE OUTSET > Our task is to come up with a set of recommendations regarding process and > appropriate topics for cross constituency work which necessarily precedes > (AND ACCOMMODATES?) policy development under both the GNSO and ccNSO rules. > > > Am I correct in assuming that Observers need to be appointed just like > Members? If so, the following statement is fine: ³Each of the participating > SOs and ACs shall appoint Participants to the WG in accordance with their own > rules and procedures.² If not (i.e., if Observers may participate without > being appointed by their SO/AC), then this probably should be changed to ³Each > of the participating SOs and ACs shall appoint Members to the WG in accordance > with their own rules and procedures.² If we say ³in accordance with their own > rules and procedures² then doesn¹t that permit the respective SOs and ACs to > choose whether they want to appoint specific observers or whether they want to > let anyone who is interested participate as an observer? I am guessing that > the ccNSO approach will be anyone who volunteers is welcome. But I¹m not sure > how the other SOs and ACs like to handle this/FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS WORKING > GROUP, WE WANT PARTICIPANTS TO BE OFFICIAL SO THAT THE FINDINGS WILL CARRY > SOME WEIGHT. WITH AT LEAST SOMEONE IN THAT OFFICIAL CAPACITY, SELF-NOMINATED > OBSERVERS CAN BE ACCOMMODATED > > > Regarding SOIs the charter says: ³Participants from SOs or ACs for which a > Statement of Interest is required for participation in a WG shall submit an > SOI in accordance with the rules applicable to that SO/AC (if any).² This > seems to imply that an SOI is not required if the applicable SO/AC doesn¹t > require one. I think an SOI should be required by all WG Participants and I > assume that that is what is intended. Here¹s some possible rewording to make > it clear: ³All Participants must submit a Statement of Interest for > participation in the WG. Participants from SOs or ACs for which a Statement > of Interest is required for participation in a WG shall submit an SOI in > accordance with the rules applicable to that SO/AC (if any); others shall > submit an SOI that provides comparable information according to the rules of > one of the SO/ACs for which SOIs are required.² I¹m ok with that > approach/AGREED; AN SOI IS AN IMPORTANT PART OF THE LEGITIMACY OF THE WORKING > GROUP. > > >> --------- Original Message --------- >> >> Subject: Re: [gnso-ccwg-dt] RE: For your review: revised draft charter >> From: "Burr, Becky" <Becky.Burr@xxxxxxxxxxx> >> Date: 3/1/14 10:04 am >> To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Mary Wong" <mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx>, >> "gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx> >> >> See my responses. In blue >> >> J. Beckwith Burr >> Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer >> 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006 >> Office: + 1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / becky.burr@xxxxxxxxxxx >> / www.neustar.biz <http://www.neustar.biz> >> >> >> >> From: Chuck Gomes <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >> Date: Saturday, March 1, 2014 at 9:29 AM >> To: Mary Wong <mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx>, "gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx" >> <gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx> >> Subject: [gnso-ccwg-dt] RE: For your review: revised draft charter >> >> >> >> Thanks Becky, John and Mary for the quick turn-around on this. Here is my >> feedback. >> >> >> Is there a reason why we refer to (Co-)Chairs¹ throughout the charter. Why >> not call them Co-Chairs¹? I agree >> >> >> Is it correct to assume that the Co-Chairs will be appointed from the Members >> of the WG, in other words, they would be allowed to vote? It might be good >> to clarify this. In my opinion, if the co-chairs represent their SO or AC, >> then they should be allowed to vote by simply taking off their co-chair hast >> when doing so; otherwise, the SO/AC would lose one of their voices when >> voting occurs. On the other hand, if the co-chairs are expected to serve >> specifically in a completely neutral capacity, then they would not need to >> vote; in such a case though, I don¹t think they should be included in the >> Minimum and Maximum Member numbers. I think it would be helpful to clarify >> these issues in the charter. Yes the co-chairs will be selected from the >> members and by the members. I assume that they would be allowed to vote, >> although the question itself reflects an interesting difference in approach >> between the ccnso and the gnso. Our task is to come up with a set of >> recommendations regarding process and appropriate topics for cross >> constituency work which necessarily precedes policy development under both >> the GNSO and ccNSO rules. >> >> >> Am I correct in assuming that Observers need to be appointed just like >> Members? If so, the following statement is fine: ³Each of the participating >> SOs and ACs shall appoint Participants to the WG in accordance with their own >> rules and procedures.² If not (i.e., if Observers may participate without >> being appointed by their SO/AC), then this probably should be changed to >> ³Each of the participating SOs and ACs shall appoint Members to the WG in >> accordance with their own rules and procedures.² If we say ³in accordance >> with their own rules and procedures² then doesn¹t that permit the respective >> SOs and ACs to choose whether they want to appoint specific observers or >> whether they want to let anyone who is interested participate as an observer? >> I am guessing that the ccNSO approach will be anyone who volunteers is >> welcome. But I¹m not sure how the other SOs and ACs like to handle this. >> >> >> Regarding SOIs the charter says: ³Participants from SOs or ACs for which a >> Statement of Interest is required for participation in a WG shall submit an >> SOI in accordance with the rules applicable to that SO/AC (if any).² This >> seems to imply that an SOI is not required if the applicable SO/AC doesn¹t >> require one. I think an SOI should be required by all WG Participants and I >> assume that that is what is intended. Here¹s some possible rewording to make >> it clear: ³All Participants must submit a Statement of Interest for >> participation in the WG. Participants from SOs or ACs for which a Statement >> of Interest is required for participation in a WG shall submit an SOI in >> accordance with the rules applicable to that SO/AC (if any); others shall >> submit an SOI that provides comparable information according to the rules of >> one of the SO/ACs for which SOIs are required.² I¹m ok with that approach. >> >> >> Chuck >> >> >> >> From:owner-gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On >> Behalf Of Mary Wong >> Sent: Friday, February 28, 2014 3:35 PM >> To: gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx >> Subject: [gnso-ccwg-dt] For your review: revised draft charter >> >> >> >> Dear DT members, >> >> >> >> Please find attached the draft charter, revised following the call yesterday >> and as reviewed by the Co-Chairs, in both CLEAN and REDLINED versions. Once >> we are able to confirm a date and time for the next DT meeting, I will send >> you the information about that as well. As such, please take a moment to fill >> out the Doodle poll at your earliest convenience: >> http://doodle.com/4zur3s2auax8ivr8 >> >> >> >> Thanks and cheers >> >> Mary >> >> >> >> Mary Wong >> >> Senior Policy Director >> >> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) >> >> Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 >> >> Email: mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx >> >> >> >> * One World. One Internet. * > > > > PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com > <http://www.haven2.com> , HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, > LinkedIn, etc.) > Attachment:
Updated Draft Charter 3 Mar 2014 REDLINE from 28 Feb.docx Attachment:
smime.p7s
|