Completely agree with this Marilia. I'm ambivalent about how members are chosen and happy to go with whatever others want. What I think is most important is to ensure that members are chosen on a 1) stakeholder group and not constituency basis and 2) in equal numbers paralleling the composition of the GNSO Council.



Best,



Ed



Sent from my iPhone



> On 26 Jun 2016, at 14:54, Marilia Maciel <[log in to unmask]> 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]> 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]> on behalf of farzaneh badii <[log in to unmask]>

>>> Reply-To: farzaneh badii <[log in to unmask]>

>>> Date: Friday 24 June 2016 at 07:24

>>> To: "[log in to unmask]" <[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]> 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]>

>>>> To: [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

>> E: [log in to unmask] | T: +44.771.247.2987

>