[cc-humanrights] Considerations on next steps
aelsadr at egyptig.org
Wed Mar 18 08:31:57 UTC 2015
Coming from a part of the world where due process (along with human rights) is pretty much an alien notion, I have an affinity for process wherever I can find it. :) But I appreciate the frustration in processes hampering effectiveness and efficiency.
I agree that we don’t need to follow in the footsteps of the CCWG-IG. That’s why I also believe a working party is a constructive first step. Only meant to use it as an example for a CCWG that was established with only one of the GNSO’s stakeholder groups along with another AC. I don’t recall it ever being referred to as a joint working group rather than a CCWG, but if you say so, I will defer to your account of it.
On Mar 18, 2015, at 2:29 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com> wrote:
> Dear Amr:
> On 17/03/2015 20:42, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>> However, I would like to note something at this time. Contrary to what
>> Jean-Jaques said, a CCWG does not necessarily need to be chartered by
>> the GNSO as a whole. Although that would be desirable, a single
>> Stakeholder Group (or more than one) within the GNSO could adopt a
>> charter if any other SO or AC is willing to participate as a
>> chartering organization. The CCWG-IG is an example of a CCWG that came
>> into existence before the GNSO adopted a charter. It started off by
>> being an initiative by the NCSG and ALAC. This was partly because the
>> charter of the CCWG was adopted many months after the CCWG-IG actually
>> began its work.
> I wouldn't take the CCWG on Internet Governance as an example. We
> initially started as a joint working group between the ALAC and the
> NCSG. This was picked up by David Olive and announced. We hoped others
> would joint and they did indeed, but rather fast and we ended up working
> without a charter, which was not ideal - especially with people trying
> to discredit the legitimacy of the group itself. It took several months
> to draft a charter and have it ratified by most (but not all) of the SOs
> and ACs and over a year later we're still grappling with the make-up of
> the CCWG's membership.
> That's the reason why I recommended we do not go down the CCWG route and
> that we set-up some kind of Working Party. Ultimately, I know, it's all
> "process" and I wish we didn't have so much red tape around things. :-)
> Kindest regards,
More information about the cc-humanrights