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

Rafik Dammak rafik.dammak at gmail.com
Thu Apr 28 06:35:18 UTC 2016


Hi,

maybe adding here, that we made a report to GNSO council in Marrakech
during the GNSO-ccNSO joint meeting.
regarding the updates, depends what the kind of reports they would like:
written report or 10 to 15min update during a GNSO council call.

Best,

Rafik

2016-04-28 3:42 GMT+09:00 Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com>:

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160428/be43b8b6/attachment.html>


More information about the ccwg-internet-governance mailing list