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]>
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
 
 
-------- 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
 
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
Skype: carlos.raulg
Current UTC offset: -6.00 (Costa Rica)
Forwarded message:
 
> From: Darcy Southwell <[log in to unmask]com>
> 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