[Accountability-dt] Accountability CCWG Membership

Wed Nov 12 15:03:49 UTC 2014

Mathieu,

I generally share your opinion.

For me, and since the time is too tight, we should think first of
efficiency, and yes, from my experience, 25 is already too large for a WG to
be productive.

I confess that I couldn’t find an answer to the following question: Why it
was not a problem having only 5 members per chartering organization on the
CWG and it is for the CCWG???

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

Tijani BEN JEMAA

Executive Director

Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI)

Phone:  + 216 41 649 605

Mobile: + 216 98 330 114

Fax:       + 216 70 853 376

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

De : accountability-dt-bounces at icann.org
[mailto:accountability-dt-bounces at icann.org] De la part de Mathieu Weill
Envoyé : mercredi 12 novembre 2014 12:40
À : accountability-dt at icann.org
Objet : Re: [Accountability-dt] Accountability CCWG Membership

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

21st 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

---
Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la protection avast! Antivirus est active.
http://www.avast.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-dt/attachments/20141112/9ee777fa/attachment.html>