[Accountability-dt] Accountability CCWG Membership

Wed Nov 12 11:40:23 UTC 2014

Dear Colleagues,

Many thanks to David for his time spent reaching out and listening to 
the BC community. I think this feedback raises an important point in the 
Charter.

I understand this limitation to 5 members by SO or AC is a significant 
concern for the gNSO due to its internal structure, split into 
stakeholder groups and constituencies. I fully appreciate the 
difficulties that might arise from having to select only 5 
representatives and thus having some constituencies not represented as 
members, only as participants.

Speaking personnaly (no co-chair hat here), and from the point of view 
of another SO, the ccNSO, I believe we need to take into account some 
potential drawbacks of the extension to 7 members per endorsing SO or AC.

First, as was raised for the ICG when the GAC requested to appoint up to 
5 members, we are extending the size of the CCWG. Based on the 
assumption that 5 SOs and ACs would endorse the Charter (gNSO, ccNSO, 
ASO, ALAC & GAC), the number of members could reach 25 with 5 members, 
35 with 7. 25 members is already a very large group. It may be an even 
bigger challenge to work in a 35-members + participants working group. 
Others on this list are more experienced than I am in Icann WGs but my 
personal feeling is that it a concern to consider.

I am also concerned about volunteer fatigue among some communities. The 
ICG and the CWG are already taking a very serious toll upon volunteer 
time. I am concerned that the accountability CCWG might not find in all 
constituencies enough volunteers to fill even 5 member seats. It is not 
a critical issue beacause the work will be driven by consensus but that 
may lead to some imbalance between the various SO and ACs if we extend 
the number to 7.

Those are of course only initial thoughts, and only a matter of balance 
between objectives of equal value : having a truly inclusive CCWG, and 
providing the CCWG with a setup that maximises its chances of being 
efficient and successful.

I would welcome feedback from the group about the best way to balance 
these goals.

Best
Mathieu

Le 11/11/2014 18:45, Drazek, Keith a écrit :
>
> I would support increasing the number of representatives per SO-AC 
> from 5 to 7 for the reasons David outlined below.
>
> If the GNSO feels it needs 7 seats to enable full participation and 
> representation of its various constituencies, it seems logical the 
> other SOs and ACs would also receive a commensurate increase in their 
> slots.
>
> Regards,
> Keith
>
> *From:*accountability-dt-bounces at icann.org 
> [mailto:accountability-dt-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Fares, David
> *Sent:* Monday, November 10, 2014 1:59 PM
> *To:* accountability-dt at icann.org
> *Subject:* [Accountability-dt] Accountability CCWG Membership
>
> Colleagues,
>
> In the BC discussions on the draft charter we have spent significant 
> time discussing the number of representatives for the chartering 
> organizations.  We believe strongly that there should be 7 reps per 
> chartered organization for the following reasons:
>
>  1. We agree with parity when it comes to consensus calls/voting.
>  2. We object to disenfranchising chartered constituencies in the
>     GNSO, which is the effect of limiting to 5 representatives from
>     the GNSO.  There are 7 chartered GNSO groups (Registries,
>     Registrars, BC, IPC, ISPC, NCUC, NPOC).  So 2 chartered
>     organizations would not get a representative on the CCWG if it is
>     limited to 5 reps.
>
> The charter will be discussed by the Council on Thursday and it would 
> be helpful to know where other drafting team members are on this issue 
> in advance of that discussion.
>
> David
>
> David Fares
>
> Senior Vice-President, Government Relations
>
> 21^st Century Fox
>
> +44 (0) 207 019 5675
>
> This message and its attachments may contain legally privileged or 
> confidential information. It is intended solely for the named 
> addressee. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or 
> responsible for delivery of the message to the addressee), you may not 
> copy or deliver this message or its attachments to anyone. Rather, you 
> should permanently delete this message and its attachments and kindly 
> notify the sender by reply e-mail. Any content of this message and its 
> attachments that does not relate to the official business of 
> Twenty-First Century Fox, Inc. or its subsidiaries must be taken not 
> to have been sent or endorsed by any of them. No representation is 
> made that this email or its attachments are without defect.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-dt mailing list
> Accountability-dt at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-dt

-- 
*****************************
Mathieu WEILL
AFNIC - directeur général
Tél: 01 39 30 83 06
mathieu.weill at afnic.fr
*****************************
ATTENTION : L'Afnic a déménagé le 31 mars 2014 !
Notre nouvelle adresse est :
Afnic - Immeuble Le Stephenson - 1, rue Stephenson - 78180 Montigny-le-Bretonneux

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-dt/attachments/20141112/1af41ae7/attachment-0001.html>