[cc-humanrights] Considerations on next steps

[Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond]

Dear Amr,

sorry if my message sounded professorial in tone - it was just to
illustrate the trials and time wasted on process when the ALAC & NCSG
did something which appeared to be nimble to start with - ICANN catches
up with you! :-) We're in violent agreement.
Kind regards,

Olivier

On 18/03/2015 09:31, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 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.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
> 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,
>>
>> Olivier
>

-- 
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
http://www.gih.com/ocl.html