[council] FW: Rec6 CWG Response to the Board Request

[Tim Ruiz]

Correct. There is a serious danger with these currently undefined CWGs,
that their work products be mistaken as some sort of consensus and/or
end run around the established policy processes.

Tim

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [council] FW: Rec6 CWG Response to the Board Request
> From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us>
> Date: Tue, January 11, 2011 4:12 pm
> To: "'bruce.tonkin at melbourneit.com.au'"
> <bruce.tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>,        "'council at gnso.icann.org'"
> <council at gnso.icann.org>
> 
> I think the point is that the Board should have directed the clarification questions to the gnso and alac communities to get the responses and not a working group of those communities.  Logic would dictate that the gnso and alac would delegate the work to the working group (with oversight from the respective councils).  This would ensure that when the board gets something back, it would be supported by the community and not just individuals that may not even be able to represent their own companies, much less their constituencies or stake-holder groups.
> 
> Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.
> Vice President, Law & Policy
> NeuStar, Inc.
> Jeff.Neuman at neustar.biz
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Bruce Tonkin [mailto:Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2011 05:01 PM
> To: council at gnso.icann.org <council at gnso.icann.org>
> Subject: RE: [council] FW: Rec6 CWG Response to the Board Request
> 
> 
> Hello Jeff,
> 
> >>  I am a little puzzled as to why there was direct communication from the working group to the board and vice versa that did not involve the community
> 
> There was a bit of both at Cartagena actually.  There was a public session which I think I chaired, and also a chance given to the working group members to explain their positions to a few Board members (certainly not a quorum of Board members).   The Board asked as a follow up to get a formal response following Cartagena on any revised position.  
> 
> Any feedback from the Council would be most welcome - especially as input into the GAC/ICANN Board meeting in late Feb 2011. 
> 
> Regards,
> Bruce Tonkin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20110112/2342f44e/attachment.html>