[ccwg-internet-governance] CCWG-IG call of Friday, April 29

Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond ocl at gih.com
Wed Apr 27 18:42:25 UTC 2016


Dear Carlos,

thanks for your follow-up on this matter:

On 27/04/2016 16:52, Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G. wrote:
> RE: proposal for the draft Agenda for the call on Friday April 29, 2016
>
> Dear Members of the CCWG-IG
>
> Assuming the call will take place and focus on ICANN relevant IG
> “policy” issues, and following up on our very good discussions in
> Marrakech and in preparation of the short agenda in Helsinki, I would
> like to suggest that we start a discussion around some of the most
> salient points of the CCWG IG charter from the perspective of the GNSO
> Council, in particular
>
> * The Co-Chairs of the WG shall update the participating SO¹s and AC¹s at
> least monthly on the activities of the WG.

In my opinion, that's something that each chair of the CCWG IG should
work out with their own Chartering Organisation. I do agree that it
would be helpful if the Co-Chairs had a "song sheet" - ie. just a
summary of the CCWG IG activities that they could share with each other,
so they all say similar things to their Chartering Organisation.

> * At appropriate times, as identified in the work plan, the WG shall
> produce
> a Progress paper to inform the broader community of its activities and
> progress made.

That could take the form of a gathering of the monthly reports with an
introduction plus some proposals for the next work period. But perhaps
we need to think about how extensive a progress paper should be. I am
concerned about the workload on the co-chairs if they were to
single-handedly put pen to paper - especially since there are probably
no staff resources to help with drafting such an update. (Nigel, am I
correct?)

> * At each ICANN Annual General Meeting, starting 2014, the Charter and
> deliverables of the WG shall be reviewed by the participating SO¹s and
> AC¹s
> to detemine whether the WG should continue, or, close and be dissolved.
> Consistent with ICANN community practices, the WG will continue if at
> least
> two of the participating SO¹s or AC²s extend the Charter of the WG and
> notify the other participating SO¹s and AC¹s accordingly one month
> after the
> annual review date.

Yes that's absolutely the case and as far as I know in my community
(ALAC) the matter was brought to light and there was no objection to the
CCWG IG continuing.

Since the forthcoming call is an organisational call and barring any
objection from Co-Chairs, I suggest we add the topic to the agenda.

Kindest regards,

Olivier


More information about the ccwg-internet-governance mailing list