[ccwg-internet-governance] New Board mandate

Drazek, Keith kdrazek at verisign.com
Fri Apr 4 20:48:30 UTC 2014

Is the CCWG-IG the right group to focus on IANA 2.0, or should it be another CCWG? It seems that there may be value in the existing CCWG-IG completing its Charter and retaining a broader focus on general IG matters, of which the NTIA announcement and future IANA are just a narrow. albeit important, subset. I guess I'm wondering if we'd be better served with 2 separate CCWGs to appropriately handle these issues before us in 2014. The answer probably depends on the charter language and whether we think a single group can handle it all. I welcome any/all views.  Thanks, Keith

Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 4, 2014, at 4:28 PM, "Avri Doria" <avri at acm.org> wrote:

> (observer)
> One thought is to actually finish the charter (yes I know it is my one
> note song) and within that charter list the goals that seem to make
> sense based on the mission of the now defunct gag and the stuff that the
> participating ACSO want to do.
> A drafting team for the charter could do this is no time.  No?
> I don't see this as a top-down effort.  It was a bottom-up effort that was enthusiastically initiated on the invitation of the top. And once again the ACSO has been invited to do something with this group by the leaders we put at the top.  I wonder whether the group can respond adequately?  Or is the model as broken as this group makes it look.
> avri
> _______________________________________________
> 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