[ccwg-internet-governance] Fwd: Cross Community Working Group on Internet Governance proposed Charter

Rafik Dammak rafik.dammak at gmail.com
Thu Aug 14 10:48:58 UTC 2014


Hi Jordan,

we already send the charter to SOs/ACs but no updates from them. I think
other matters like IANA transition , accountability and other stuff took
any available bandwidth.
we can send request to ask for a response.

Rafik


2014-08-14 15:17 GMT+09:00 Jordan Carter <jordan at internetnz.net.nz>:

> Hi all
>
> Checking in - where are we at with the charter?
>
> Best
> Jordan
>
>
> On Thursday, 26 June 2014, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I would like to point out that this number has been the case in the
>> earlier version of the charter, including those that were circulated
>> while I was still a member of this group.  In fact I dropped from member
>> to observer in order to do my bit to help the SO meet the proposed
>> numeric conditions.
>>
>> The larger body count with which this particular group was started was
>> due to the original situation of founding this group from a NCSG-ALAC
>> core.  Once some of us working on the early versions of the charter
>> looked at the equivalence issues of giving each of the RALO, e.g. as
>> many members as we gave each of the SGs, we decided that this would
>> cause rapid enlargement of the group and possibly result in more
>> imbalance between the SOs and ACs.  One of the goals of the original
>> charter writers, of which I was one while still a member, was to strive
>> to an approximation of SO/AC equal footing.
>>
>> avri
>>
>> On 26-Jun-14 08:03, Marilyn Cade wrote:
>> > Thanks, Greg.
>> >
>> > As I said, I apologize for not having noted that change at the time.
>> > I appreciate that point of view, but as there is much discussion within
>> > the GNSO's various sub organizations about participation in CCWG's
>> > overall, and the BC at least has had four participants in the initial
>> > work of the CCWG IG, I am asking the CSG to consider the  present draft.
>> >  I didn't feel that I could recommend endorsement of the Charter until
>> > this change was understood more broadly.
>> >
>> > Thanks for your email, I do appreciate it, and your explanation to the
>> > CCWG IG of your role in drafting the proposed change in numbers of
>> > participants..
>> >
>> > Were you able to follow our discussion yesterday? If not, I can also
>> > catch up with you off line, although I think that we have a transcript
>> > at some point.
>> >
>> > I also really appreciate Bill Drake's making sure that the change was
>> > understood.
>> >
>> >
>> > Marilyn Cade
>> > BC
>> >
>> >> From: GShatan at ReedSmith.com
>> >> To: marilynscade at hotmail.com; ocl at gih.com
>> >> CC: ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org
>> >> Subject: RE: [ccwg-internet-governance] Fwd: Cross Community Working
>> > Group on Internet Governance proposed Charter
>> >> Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 16:26:41 +0000
>> >>
>> >> Marilyn:
>> >>
>> >> I've gone back and looked at this again (apologies for not doing so
>> > during the meeting), since I recall feeling that we had come to a place
>> > that I think should be satisfactory to the GNSO. The current draft
>> > charter allows each organization "a maximum of six (6) Members
>> > (excluding the appointed Co-Chair)." This was actually language that I
>> > had a hand in developing. With 6 members plus a Co-Chair, the GNSO would
>> > have 7 seats, sufficient to allow each discrete organization within the
>> > GNSO to be fully represented in a voting capacity. In addition, there
>> > would be an equal number of Observers, so that at least one additional
>> > member of each discrete SG/Constituency would be able to participate as
>> > an Observer (I hope that's not an oxymoron). Therefore, I think that the
>> > effect on participation may not be so significant.
>> >>
>> >> I'm not in London (sadly), but feel free to reach out to me by email
>> > or phone if you would like to discuss.
>> >>
>> >> Greg
>> >>
>> >> Gregory S. Shatan
>> >> Partner
>> >> Reed Smith LLP
>> >> 599 Lexington Avenue
>> >> New York, NY 10022
>> >> 212.549.0275 (Phone)
>> >> 917.816.6428 (Mobile)
>> >> 212.521.5450 (Fax)
>> >> gshatan at reedsmith.com
>> >> www.reedsmith.com
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: ccwg-internet-governance-bounces at icann.org
>> > [mailto:ccwg-internet-governance-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of
>> Marilyn
>> > Cade
>> >> Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2014 9:35 AM
>> >> To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond
>> >> Cc: ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org
>> >> Subject: Re: [ccwg-internet-governance] Fwd: Cross Community Working
>> > Group on Internet Governance proposed Charter
>> >>
>> >> My deep apologies for being so disconnected on the item about numbers
>> > of participants from various groups in regard to the Charter. I was
>> > traveling extensively and thought I was keeping up with the major
>> > changes about the Charter re substance, our role, etc., and frankly, I
>> > missed the proposal to change the number of members that we launched the
>> > CCWG IG with, so substantially. And I would have commented before if i
>> > had caught that, so deep apologies.
>> >>
>> >> I have to withdraw my recommendation that the GNSO support the Charter
>> > until the participation topic is further clarified. This is what I will
>> > take back, along with Phil Corwin who was also at the working session
>> > from the BC, and socialize within the BC, and with Wolf Ulrich's help
>> > from ISPCP, and with Greg Shatan's engagement, take this topic up in the
>> > CSG's three constituencies.
>> >>
>> >> I will signal that I doubt agreement of such a drastic drop in
>> > participation from Constituencies in numbers.
>> >>
>> >> I personally find it very difficult to even think this is a good idea,
>> > as the credibility of the proposals of the CCWG-IG will be based on the
>> > acceptance that it was truly broad and diverse and engaging across the
>> > Communities. It should not be 'represenational', but participatory, I
>> > think, personally.
>> >>
>> >> However, I also want to note that there is a significant potential
>> > impact on the future of CCWGs acceptance and support from the broad
>> > communities, if there is a continued effort to so significantly restrict
>> > participation. I don't think I am in support of an interpretation of a
>> > CCWG being too large to make decisions, given the nature of CCWGs. If we
>> > want by-in, we want broader groups of participants. I see no evidence
>> > that the prior arrangement was too large to get work done, although I
>> > can see that in decision making, perhaps that would be the time to ask
>> > for the pool of participants from a particular Constituency to designate
>> > only one lead, such as on the Charter, where we could have then assured
>> > that there was a designated lead per group.
>> >>
>> >> Thus I am raising this this afternoon, but for now, I am not able to
>> > support approving the Charter with the change in numbers, so apologies,
>> > but thanks to Bill for catching that some of us did not fully appreciate
>> > that change.
>> >>
>> >> other comments from today; I think we had a good number of positive
>> > and constructive actions proposed. They also sounded like productive
>> > work that will engage the members of the CCWG.
>> >> BUT, they also sound like work, which brings me back to thinking about
>> > resources.
>> >>
>> >> I know it is confusing to have a last minute question about the
>> > Charter, and it is probably due to my rapid transit when I was having an
>> > hour or two in between planes to try to look at the Charter and possibly
>> > just not fully taking note of last minute changes.
>> >>
>> >> M
>> >> Sent from my iPad
>> >>
>> >> > On Jun 25, 2014, at 6:48 AM, "Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond"
>> > <ocl at gih.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > Dear Marilyn,
>> >> >
>> >> >> On 24/06/2014 18:18, Marilyn Cade wrote:
>> >> >> I am also aware that the staff have planned a session on IG, but I
>> >> >> don't think I am aware of any discussion with our CCWG IG, so we
>> >> >> should be thinking about what role we are playing in terms of
>> >> >> community input and guidance and how we are contributing to
>> >> >> fulfilling the role the community thought needed, when this CCWG IG
>> > was established.
>> >> >
>> >> > There was no discussion on our CCWG IG re: the Staff session -- and
>> in
>> >> > fact it was only because we asked about this session that Staff
>> >> > invited me to take part.
>> >> > That session would have taken place without any of us being present.
>> >> >
>> >> > Kind regards,
>> >> >
>> >> > Olivier
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> ccwg-internet-governance mailing list
>> >> ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org
>> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-internet-governance
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> * * *
>> >>
>> >> This E-mail, along with any attachments, is considered
>> >> confidential and may well be legally privileged. If you have received
>> > it in
>> >> error, you are on notice of its status. Please notify us immediately
>> > by reply
>> >> e-mail and then delete this message from your system. Please do not
>> > copy it or
>> >> use it for any purposes, or disclose its contents to any other
>> >> person. Thank you for your cooperation.
>> >>
>> >> * * *
>> >>
>> >> To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we
>> >> inform you that, unless otherwise indicated in writing, any U.S.
>> > Federal tax
>> >> advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is
>> not
>> >> intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of
>> (1)
>> >> avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state
>> >> and local provisions or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to
>> > another
>> >> party any tax-related matters addressed herein.
>> >> Disclaimer Version RS.US.20.10.00
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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
>>
>
>
> --
> --
> Jordan Carter
> Chief Executive, InternetNZ
>
> +64-21-442-649 | jordan at internetnz.net.nz
>
> Sent on the run, apologies for brevity
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ccwg-internet-governance mailing list
> ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-internet-governance
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-internet-governance/attachments/20140814/2b25c46d/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the ccwg-internet-governance mailing list