[Internal-cg] worth noting

[Milton L Mueller]

I've made some inquiries about this. Apparently the problem is more one of perception. The CWG made the rather stupid mistake of calling participants on the email discussion list "observers" rather than "participants." 

This was an unfortunate choice of words, given that in the CWG consensus calls are supposed to be based on the email list participants' views. Only when there is no consensus things will go to the more restricted "working group" members for a vote. 

--MM

> -----Original Message-----
> From: internal-cg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-
> bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller
> Sent: Monday, September 29, 2014 9:25 AM
> To: internal-cg at icann.org
> Subject: [Internal-cg] worth noting
> 
> A complaint has been filed against the names community's working
> group.
> http://forum.icann.org/lists/icg-forum/msg00011.html
> 
> Alissa made some similar comments on the IETF ianaplan list. Although
> I have publicly explained why they set it up that way, frankly I find the
> CWG Structure hard to defend. I wonder whether others more closely
> involved with the IANA CWG chartering process could explain whether
> it is possible to make some amendments. The group is slow enough to
> form as it is, I tremble at the thought of amendments that would lead
> to further delays, but it might actually save time if it prevents
> challenges to its legitimacy further down the road.
> 
> Milton L. Mueller
> Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor Syracuse University School
> of Information Studies
> http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/mueller/Home.html
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg