Dear Rafik,
as already commented to Farzaneh´s email on the subject, a charter
revision under the new framework would be most useful, in terms of
1. a regular revision of (policy) intentions. For example I would
suggest at least one: “impact of the new bylaws in terms of joining
or not some international bodies and/or working groups”.
2. discussion (regular)(policy) deliverables on those particular issues
(not just reports), and
3. regular revisions of milestones/objectives reached (and not only
international meetings joined)
Best
Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
+506 8837 7176
Skype: carlos.raulg
Current UTC offset: -6.00 (Costa Rica)
On 31 Oct 2016, at 6:28, Rafik Dammak wrote:
> Hi Stephanie,
>
> as I suggested in NCSG Policy Committee list, I think the CCWG-IG can
> work
> on charter amendments if the council give more specifics and details
> about
> its concerns.
> As one of the co-chairs of the CWG-IG, we gave reports to the council
> since
> Marrakesh meeting and responded to the questions. I can work with
> the
> working members and other co-chairs on drafting the amendment and we
> need
> time to achieve that. Having the new framework cross-community working
> group, we can use that as opportunity to improve the CCWG-IG and align
> it
> with the SO/AC expectations. For other groups within GNSO, I think we
> can
> get support at least from Business Constituency, while we try to
> understand
> more the contracted party concerns.
>
> deferral is needed in order for the council to have a meaningful
> discussion
> and also liaising with other chartering organizations. I am not aware
> about
> precedent where a group left a joint or cross community working group
> in
> such manner.
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
> 2016-10-29 10:42 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin <
> [log in to unmask]>:
>
>> That is right, I fired that proposal off to our policy cttee...and I
>> think
>> we have agreement that it is premature to disengage from this. Other
>> SGs
>> may feel entirely different though. I think there is a feeling that
>> by
>> disengaging, we are limiting scope creep at ICANN. Personally, I
>> doubt
>> that. Important to stay engaged to *prevent* scope creep....
>>
>> But mostly, we need to talk this one around a bit.
>>
>> cheers Stephanie
>>
>> On 2016-10-28 13:44, Edward Morris wrote:
>>
>> Hi Ayden,
>>
>> Thanks for the question.
>>
>> I believe Stephanie has indicated that she will request a deferral on
>> this
>> motion, an action I most certainly support. We need time to speak to
>> our
>> colleagues in the Contracted Party House and Commercial Stakeholders
>> Group,
>> ascertain their concerns and level of support for the CWG-IG, and
>> sort a
>> way to move forward together. As a result of work of the CCWG squared
>> WG
>> there certainly will need to be some Charter amendments and
>> adjustments to
>> the group. That certainly is doable and I'm cautiously optimistic
>> that
>> we'll be able to fashion a way forward assuming, of course, we can
>> find a
>> minimal level of support elsewhere in the GNSO.
>>
>> Kind Regards,
>>
>> Ed Morris
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> *From*: "Ayden Férdeline" <[log in to unmask]>
>> <[log in to unmask]>
>> *Sent*: Friday, October 28, 2016 5:37 PM
>> *To*: [log in to unmask]
>> *Subject*: Fwd: Motion – Withdrawal of the GNSO as a Chartering
>> Organization for the Cross Community Working Group to discuss
>> Internet
>> governance (CWG-IG) issues affecting ICANN
>>
>> Can I please ask our GNSO Councillors to outline their position on
>> the
>> attached motion? I find it rather shocking and my initial reaction is
>> that
>> I hope the motion does not pass, but perhaps you can persuade me
>> otherwise... Thanks.
>>
>> Ayden Férdeline
>> linkedin.com/in/ferdeline <http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline>
>>
>>
>>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: [ccwg-internet-governance] Fwd: [council] Motion –
>> Withdrawal of
>> the GNSO as a Chartering Organization for the Cross Community Working
>> Group
>> to discuss Internet governance (CWG-IG) issues affecting ICANN
>> Local Time: 27 October 2016 2:18 PM
>> UTC Time: 27 October 2016 13:18
>> From: [log in to unmask]
>> To: Nigel Hickson <[log in to unmask]>
>> <[log in to unmask]>
>>
>> Dear members of the CCWG-IG,
>>
>> I want to share this motion that has been put forward to the next
>> GNSO
>> council meeting which will take place during the ICANN57 meeting.
>>
>> Best regards
>>
>> Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
>> +506 8837 7176
>> Skype: carlos.raulg
>> Current UTC offset: -6.00 (Costa Rica)
>> Forwarded message:
>>
>>> From: Darcy Southwell <[log in to unmask]>
>> <[log in to unmask]>
>>> To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
>> <[log in to unmask]>
>>> Subject: [council] Motion – Withdrawal of the GNSO as a Chartering
>>> Organization for the Cross Community Working Group to discuss
>>> Internet
>>> governance (CWG-IG) issues affecting ICANN
>>> Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2016 16:56:30 -0700
>>>
>>> Dear Councilors,
>>>
>>> Attached is a motion for the GNSO to withdraw as a Chartering
>>> Organization for the Cross Community Working Group to discuss
>>> Internet
>>> governance (CWG-IG) issues affecting ICANN for our November 7
>>> Council
>>> meeting.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Darcy
>>>
>>> __________
>>>
>>> Darcy Southwell | Compliance Officer
>>>
>>> M: +1 503-453-7305 │ Skype: darcy.enyeart
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ccwg-internet-governance mailing list
>> [log in to unmask]
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-internet-governance
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
|