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> > >