[ccwg-internet-governance] Charter comments

Avri Doria avri at acm.org
Mon Jan 20 18:05:31 UTC 2014


-- Re Issue 3 Alternatives.

I think that alternative 1 is the best option.  Alternative 2 is a 
recipe for either deadlock or for dilution and ambiguation that goes 
beyond useless.

-- Re:

> The WG shall, at its reasonable discretion,
> not be obligated to address all comments made
> during the comment period, nor shall the WG be
> obligated at its reasonable discretion to include
> all comments submitted by any one individual
> or organisation.

I think all appropriate comments (i.e not the ones telling us to take a 
flying leap or its equivalent) should be addressed.  I do not say they 
should all motivate change in the item under review, but they should all 
be addressed.  I know this is an impossible task without strong support 
form the staff and sufficient time, but it should be the goal.  We 
should not start out saying we dont need to address comments.

I suggest something like:

The WG should make best effort to address all comments made during the 
comment period.

Re membership.  I would suggest a maximum of 5 representatives per AC or 
SO so that regional balance can be maintained by any AC or SO whose 
structure requires such balance.

-- Re: Observers speaking.  I agree in principle but it seems a bit harsh.

How about:

and will therefore only be able to speak on calls with permission of the 
Chair of the conference call.

-- re: Charter omissions

I would prefer more WG involvement.

How about:

the Co-Chairs of the WG shall decide within reason, subject taking into 
account WG membership comment.


More information about the ccwg-internet-governance mailing list