[council] CCWG Ig and NetMundial statements

[Mike O'Connor]

hi Avri,

i’m just tuning back into this project.  the draft i’m looking at is at

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BOpCmeE4YL3cat_6oN5RaNvDgvEYO-HS82gRzc_aRjo/mobilebasic?pli=1

is that the best snapshot of the current state of affairs?  if so, it does have what looks like a pretty carefully-worded introduction that talks about the current status of ratification, and how the CCWG will notify NetMundial if such ratification takes place.  here’s the language as it stands while i type this note:

"This contribution has been drafted using multi-stakeholder principles by the ICANN Cross Community Working Group (CCWG) on Internet Governance, a group that comprises members of ICANN’s Supporting Organisations (SO), Advisory Committees (AC) and Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Stakeholder Groups (SG)[d]. This bottom-up process involved up to five people from each of these groups that comprise ICANN’s volunteer community. The concepts expressed in this paper are the result of discussion having taken place on the working group’s mailing list, the CCWG Wiki space created to support it and weekly conference calls throughout the months of January and February 2014.

"Due to time pressures, the proposals expressed in this contribution have not, so far, been ratified by the respective SOs, ACs and SGs of ICANN. Further communication will advise the NetMundial Organizing Committee if such ratification takes place before the meeting in Brazil."

is there a change to that draft that would address the issue you’re raising?  

mikey


On Mar 5, 2014, at 1:35 AM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

> 
> Hi,
> 
> I am an observer in this group and see that it is working on a statement.
> 
> Isn't this a statement that the various contributing SO/AC need to review before it gets sent in? Or are we comfortable with just letting them do their own thing and submit something that is in some sense in our name as a CCWG, but not vetted.
> 
> The group process troubles me as it wasn't even able to complete a charter before starting to craft statements and has a unbalanced membership.  In fact it is much more a GNSO group, though following no specific or guidelines, than a cross community one at this point as there has not been wide cross community buy-in yet.
> 
> Of course I have no issue with a bunch of people signing their own names to anything they wish, but I would be against a group sending something out in the name of the cross community that had never even reviewed the WG's efforts.
> 
> I do believe in the eventual utility of this group, but I would like to see it organized on a firm ross community footing before it starts making declarations to the world.
> 
> avri


PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20140305/cc4887ca/attachment.html>