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 >> >> >> >> >>