Totally agree, Marilia!

Stephanie


On 2016-06-26 7:52, Marilia Maciel wrote:
> My concern is with the balance of SGs inputs into the discussion. This 
> a complex issue in which some decisions will be made. I tend to think 
> that an equal number of participants would be important to achieve a 
> fair result. Otherwise we may confront ourselves with a army of legal 
> people dedicated full time to this. What do others think about a group 
> with limited membership and parity of members?
> Marilia
>
> On Sat, Jun 25, 2016 at 2:53 PM, Matthew Shears <[log in to unmask] 
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
>     + 1 Yes, open.  The CCWG bylaws work has been a useful training
>     ground.
>
>
>     On 6/24/2016 9:41 AM, James Gannon wrote:
>>     Yes I’d support this, plenty of us who have been working on CWG
>>     and CCWG can move quickly on this working with councillors in a
>>     bottom up manner.
>>
>>     -J
>>
>>     From: NCSG-Discuss <[log in to unmask]
>>     <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> on behalf of farzaneh
>>     badii <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
>>     Reply-To: farzaneh badii <[log in to unmask]
>>     <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
>>     Date: Friday 24 June 2016 at 07:24
>>     To: "[log in to unmask]
>>     <mailto:[log in to unmask]>"
>>     <[log in to unmask]
>>     <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
>>     Subject: Re: Council Item for Disussion
>>
>>     or perhaps call for an open group so that anyone can join?
>>
>>
>>
>>     On 24 June 2016 at 08:01, Dorothy K. Gordon
>>     <[log in to unmask]
>>     <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>>
>>         In theory your approach would be ideal but given the
>>         deadlines would it be effectively possible? Perhaps Council +
>>         a few others?
>>
>>         ----- Original Message -----
>>         From: "James Gannon" <[log in to unmask]
>>         <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
>>         To: [log in to unmask]
>>         <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>>         Sent: Friday, June 24, 2016 6:12:30 AM
>>         Subject: Council Item for Disussion
>>
>>
>>         Hi All,
>>         As we know there are many changes coming for the role of the
>>         GNSO with our new accountability powers, I want to call out
>>         the following item on the council agenda for Helsinki
>>
>>             * Item 5: COUNCIL VOTE - Approval to Form a Drafting Team
>>         to Develop an Implementation Plan for New and Additional GNSO
>>         Powers and Obligations under the Revised ICANN Bylaws (15
>>         minutes)
>>
>>         I have to say that I am concerned about this, this is a
>>         critical item for the GNSO and will set its strategic view
>>         and position for the next 5-7 years most likely, I don’t fee
>>         very comfortable with this being done in a potentially top
>>         down manner by council, I feel that this should be developed
>>         in a bottom up manner by the SGs and C’s first.
>>
>>
>>         I would be interested in others thoughts so that we can guide
>>         the PC on a position on this
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>         James
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>     -- 
>>     Farzaneh
>
>     -- 
>
>     Matthew Shears | Director, Global Internet Policy & Human Rights Project
>     Center for Democracy & Technology |cdt.org <http://cdt.org>
>     E:[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>  | T:+44.771.247.2987 <tel:%2B44.771.247.2987>
>
>