<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#330033">
Hi,<br>
<br>
This is the same membership basis that was used for the
CWG-Stewardship, a charter the council already approved. In fact
ths cahrter was patterned off of that with the missions and goals
being different, but the modalities being similar. I do not recall
any discussion during the drafting about a larger representation.<br>
<br>
Only the CSG-Internet had the larger membership count, it was the
exception given if long operation as an ad-hoc group without a
charter.<br>
<br>
Incidentally, the team from the GNSO on this drafting team consisted
of:<br>
<br>
<p><strong>GNSO</strong>:</p>
<p>Avri Doria</p>
<p>Keith Drazek</p>
<p>David Fares</p>
<p><strong>Thomas Rickert (co-chair)</strong></p>
<br>
<br>
I hope that helps clarify.<br>
<br>
avri<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 06-Nov-14 17:41, Gabriela Szlak wrote:<br>
<span style="white-space: pre;">> Dear all,<br>
><br>
> Thanks so much for the hard work on this.<br>
><br>
> Regarding the charter, I would like to ask a clarifying
question on the<br>
> issue of membership of the CCWG.<br>
><br>
> The charter says:<br>
><br>
> *"Each of the chartering organizations shall appoint a
minimum of 2 and a<br>
> maximum of 5 members to the working group in accordance with
their own<br>
> rules and procedures"*<br>
><br>
> ¿Could we clarify before the next council call what this
means?<br>
><br>
> I recall a long discussion in LA on membership regarding the
Charter for<br>
> the CCWG on IG so I would like to be sure we all understand
the language,<br>
> as I am not sure I do, and Susan and I need to report to BC
members and ask<br>
> for guidance on this topic. There is a huge amount of work to
be done on<br>
> this CCWG and we believe that diversity of expertise and
viewpoints in<br>
> membership is crucial to achieve to proposed goals.<br>
><br>
> Thanks a lot,<br>
> Gabi<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> *Gabriela Szlak *<br>
><br>
><br>
> *<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="Skype:*">Skype:*</a> gabrielaszlak<br>
><br>
> *Twitter: @*GabiSzlak<br>
><br>
><br>
> La información contenida en este e-mail es confidencial.<br>
> The information in this e-mail is confidential.<br>
><br>
><br>
> 2014-11-03 19:16 GMT-03:00 Avri Doria <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:avri@acm.org"><avri@acm.org></a>:<br>
><br>
>></span><br>
<blockquote type="cite">Hi,<br>
<br>
I second the motion.<br>
<br>
As a member of the DT, I also applaud the effort and cooperative
spirit<br>
of the DT group. We are getting better at starting up these CWG
efforts,<br>
and I admit that the time we did it in looks like it may be far
shorter<br>
than my predictions.<br>
<br>
avri<br>
<br>
<br>
On 04-Nov-14 05:52, Thomas Rickert wrote:<br>
>>> All,<br>
>>> please find attached for your consideration a motion
considering the<br>
adoption of<br>
>>> the charter for the Enhancing Accountability CWG as
well as the charter.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Let me take the opportunity to applaud DT members,
ICANN staff and my<br>
co-chair<br>
>>> Mathieu Weill on having produced the attached charter
in a very short<br>
time span<br>
>>> in a most collaborative fashion.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Thanks,<br>
>>> Thomas<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<span style="white-space: pre;">>><br>
>><br>
></span><br>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>