Re: [council] CCWG Ig and NetMundial statements

["Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>]

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@xxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxx
>> <mailto:avri@xxxxxxx>> 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.)