[council] CCWG Ig and NetMundial statements

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

While listing the effort as un-chartered may seem a bit strong to some,
'Ad Hoc' is a venerable name and in fact is a name from our history the
"International Ad Hoc Committee (IAHC or the Ad Hoc Committee) in
September 1996, to resolve DNS management issues" of Green and White
paper fame.

I do agree with your constraints.

And yes, I am willing to work with you on finding an acceptable  wording 
for the disclaimer, despite my concerns that no one will reading it and 
they will consider it a formal ICANN contribution.

avri

On 06-Mar-14 16:23, Mike O'Connor wrote:
>
> ouch…
>
> no agreed-to charter?  that’s troubling to me too, from a process
> standpoint.
>
> i’d be OK
>
> - not extending a formal GNSO Council endorsement, either at all or
> until the SG/Constituencies have had a chance to weigh in
>
> - putting a place for each AC/SO/SG/Constituency to endorse on the
> submission and make it clear that none have yet
>
> - rewording the disclaimer a bit.
>
> i’m uncomfortable with a disclaimer that is as strong as what you are
> suggesting though.  using the words “unchartered” and “ad-hoc” seems
> to err a bit too much the other way, almost invalidating all the work
> that has been done, which seems a shame given how hard people have
> worked.
>
> does that show you a way forward?  want to take a crack at revised
> disclaimer language?
>
> mikey
>
>
>
> On Mar 6, 2014, at 9:50 AM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> My problem is with a un-chartered ad-hoc group making a statement
>> in any name but the name of its members.  Even if it contains a
>> weak and confusing disclaimer.  They are not an ICANN cross
>> community working group by any definition of ICANN WG.
>>
>> If they were to call themselves the CC Ad-hoc group on Ig I would
>> be less insistent. But until they have managed to go through the
>> gruel of chartering I think we are messing with the processes we
>> are supposed to guard if we allow them to call themselves a CCWG in
>> a submission to an international audience.
>>
>> I know it may seem petty to some, but in these international fora,
>> something that comes with an official sounding name tends to be
>> treated as the official work, even if there is a disclaimer (who
>> reads those?)
>>
>> And in the disclaimer I would request it be stronger and that it
>> indicate it is not a chartered group within ICANN.
>>
>> It is not our job to get into its content, unless perhaps requested
>> to do so by our Stakeholder groups, but we want to be careful about
>> even appearing to endorse it without having given the group an
>> official status.
>>
>> avri
>>
>>
>> On 05-Mar-14 20:39, Mike O'Connor wrote:
>>> 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
>>> <mailto: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
>>> <http://www.haven2.com>, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter,
>>> Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
>>>
>
>
> PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE:
> OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
>
>
>
>