[ccwg-internet-governance] ccwg Internet Governance Wiki Page

Fouad Bajwa fouadbajwa at gmail.com
Sun Dec 15 21:04:46 UTC 2013


Hi,

I'm just sharing my thoughts as an observer that if we go about including 4 people from every group and subgroup, it might increase to a large number of members that will actually effect to a great deal the efficiency and effectiveness of this activity. We just saw elsewhere what 1net is really turning into and it reminds me of similar challenges in other groups that I participate in.

The ideal situation as suggestion may be to just include one person from each group that is selected by that group possibly under the terms of either coming through a consensus or is a member in good standing. For example Chairs and Co or Vice Chairs etc can definitely contribute to this role. Let's you did have four people that at no point were actually directly involved in any IG related issue other than ICANN community activities, that would not fair well.

The membership should be more involved and strategic meaning members with substantial IG involvement and active community with in ICANN sg/ac/oc/etc. otherwise this may just become another me of those redundant groups or efforts.

Best Regards
Fouad Bajwa

Sent from my mobile device

On Dec 16, 2013, at 1:18 AM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> And likewise with RALOs?  How about 4 each for them too?
> 
> I think it is a problem that some SOs have more than others, and prefer a mix that minimizes, not expands.  So different formulas van apply.
> 
> For example restrict GNSO to membership at the SG level. Perhaps 3 each  for a total of 12.
> 
> Give geographically oriented groups like CCNSO, At-Large and GAC 2 per region for a 10 count each. Or 3 for 15 each.
> 
> Still gives short shrift to SSAC and RSSAC but that can be adjusted too, but assume 3-5 each ass a start.
> 
> As a WG ~50 is a lot, but assuming that maybe 25% will do most of the talking at most, that should work.  And be closer to fair.
> 
> And yes, it is not a voting issue, but presence and a rough parity, in so far as possible, seems like a good thing in consensus too.
> 
> avri
> 
> 
> 
> On 14-Dec-13 04:48, William Drake wrote:
>> Hi Olivier
>> 
>> This is a bit complicated due to the way the silos are constructed.  But obviously we aren’t really going to have 4 reps from each SO, because GNSO aggregates such diverse interests relative to other groupings, and so e.g. the CSG will have 12 by virtue of each of its component constituencies being represented.  It’s not obvious how it would be fair for NCSG to be represented collectively by just 4 people.  So I’d argue the same principle should apply on both sides of the noncontracted house, representation from the constituency level, meaning 4 NCUC and 4 NPOC, which is still asymmetric but at least somewhat less so.
>> 
>> I agree we shouldn’t get too hung up on over-engineering this but we should be reasonably consistent at the local level; either it’s SGs with each having 4 or it’s constituencies with each having 4.
>> 
>> Bill
>> 
>> On Dec 13, 2013, at 7:36 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hello Avri,
>>> 
>>> it really is "up to 4 members", which is what each SO/AV/SG has stuck
>>> to. Any additional members they'd like to have on the WG will be
>>> observers. As for striking exact balances, I am concerned that we are
>>> being very picky on this. After all, some could say that the GNSO, with
>>> its up to 4 members per SG plus some members of the Council, really has
>>> an overwhelming presence in the WG vis à vis ccNSO or Advisory Committees.
>>> I should hope that our common goal of defending the multi-stakeholder
>>> model is strong enough that it won't involve the need to come down to
>>> voting, which is the real only reason why I can see exact science
>>> numbers matter.
>>> 
>>> Kind regards,
>>> 
>>> Olivier
>>> 
>>> On 13/12/2013 18:55, Avri Doria wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>> 
>>>> Does this mean that every constituency should be contributing 4
>>>> members.  Ie. both NCUC and NPOC should do so as well instead of just
>>>> NCSG?  How about the RALOs from At-Large, should they each contribute
>>>> 4 group members? Should NTAG also contribut4 2 in addtion to RySG? If
>>>> we are going to fan out as implicitly suggested, perhaps we need to do
>>>> so more widely.
>>>> 
>>>> Personally I would like to see the group balanced between commercial
>>>> and non commercial entities.
>>>> 
>>>> avri
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On 12-Dec-13 11:10, Renate DeWulf wrote:
>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Further to the requests for access to the ccwg Internet Governance Wiki
>>>>> page, please note that if you have already accessed in the past the
>>>>> ICANN Community wiki, you have access to this page too (same login and
>>>>> password).
>>>>> 
>>>>> If you have never accessed the ICANN Community Wiki, please let me know
>>>>> and IT will create your account.  Once created, you will receive an
>>>>> automated email confirming this.
>>>>> 
>>>>> For your information, the link to the ccwg Internet Governance Wiki page
>>>>> is hereunder.
>>>>> 
>>>>> https://community.icann.org/display/CPMMB/ICANN+Community+Preparation+for+the+Multistakeholder+Meeting+in+Brazil+Home
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> We will be working on this page in the next few days to add different
>>>>> tabs, links, documents and agendas for meetings.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Please do not hesitate to let us know if you have any suggestions for
>>>>> this page.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thank you.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Best,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Renate
>>>>> 
>>>>> *Renate De Wulf*
>>>>> 
>>>>> Executive Assistant
>>>>> 
>>>>> ICANN
>>>>> 
>>>>> Rond Point Schuman 6,
>>>>> 
>>>>> 1st floor
>>>>> 
>>>>> B-1040 Brussels
>>>>> 
>>>>> Belgium
>>>>> 
>>>>> Telephone: +32 2 894 7411
>>>>> 
>>>>> Mobile: +32 479 40 07 44
>>>>> 
>>>>> Fax: +32 2 280 1221
>>>>> 
>>>>> Skype: renate.dewulf
>>>>> 
>>>>> Email: renate.dewulf at icann.org <mailto:renate.dewulf at icann.org>
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> ccwg-internet-governance mailing list
>>>>> ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org
>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-internet-governance
>>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> ccwg-internet-governance mailing list
>>>> ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org
>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-internet-governance
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
>>> http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> ccwg-internet-governance mailing list
>>> ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-internet-governance
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> ccwg-internet-governance mailing list
>> ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-internet-governance
>> 
>> 
> _______________________________________________
> ccwg-internet-governance mailing list
> ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-internet-governance


More information about the ccwg-internet-governance mailing list