<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [gnso-ccwg-dt] JB on the revised draft charter
- To: Chuck Gomes <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [gnso-ccwg-dt] JB on the revised draft charter
- From: "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2014 08:58:19 -0600
yep, i can see the value in that.
m
On Mar 3, 2014, at 8:06 AM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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 don’t 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. i’d 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 there’s general convergence here and i don’t feel strongly
> enough about this next point to derail the conversation over it. but here
> goes…
>
> if we’re 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, aren’t we instead looking at an
> issue that’s in need of more refinement by the WG? i’m not happy with the
> way i’m saying this, it’s not very clear. but it seems like the “full
> consensus” direction reduces the need for some of that membership-strata
> detail.
>
> not a big point, i certainly won’t 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-)Chairs’ throughout the charter. Why
> not call them ‘Co-Chairs’? 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 don’t 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/DON’T 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: “Each of the participating
> SOs and ACs shall appoint Participants to the WG in accordance with their own
> rules and procedures.” If not (i.e., if Observers may participate without
> being appointed by their SO/AC), then this probably should be changed to
> “Each of the participating SOs and ACs shall appoint Members to the WG in
> accordance with their own rules and procedures.” If we say “in accordance
> with their own rules and procedures” then doesn’t 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 I’m 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: “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).” This
> seems to imply that an SOI is not required if the applicable SO/AC doesn’t
> require one. I think an SOI should be required by all WG Participants and I
> assume that that is what is intended. Here’s some possible rewording to make
> it clear: “All 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.” I’m 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
>
> 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-)Chairs’ throughout the charter. Why
> not call them ‘Co-Chairs’? 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 don’t 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: “Each of the participating
> SOs and ACs shall appoint Participants to the WG in accordance with their own
> rules and procedures.” If not (i.e., if Observers may participate without
> being appointed by their SO/AC), then this probably should be changed to
> “Each of the participating SOs and ACs shall appoint Members to the WG in
> accordance with their own rules and procedures.” If we say “in accordance
> with their own rules and procedures” then doesn’t 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 I’m not sure how the other SOs and ACs like to handle this.
>
> Regarding SOIs the charter says: “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).” This
> seems to imply that an SOI is not required if the applicable SO/AC doesn’t
> require one. I think an SOI should be required by all WG Participants and I
> assume that that is what is intended. Here’s some possible rewording to make
> it clear: “All 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.” I’m 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, HANDLE:
> OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
>
PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP
(ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|