ICANN staff seems to be inclined towards a smaller group that could work efficiently within the limited time frame ahead (about a month). This motion will be further discussed today afternoon and will be decided upon on Thursday. Marilia On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 9:45 AM, Stephanie Perrin < [log in to unmask]> wrote: > 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]> 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]>[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]" < >> [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]>[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 >> >> > >