ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[council] Fwd: [] CCWG contribution in ICANN's homepage banner

  • To: "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [council] Fwd: [] CCWG contribution in ICANN's homepage banner
  • From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2014 06:32:14 -0400
  • In-reply-to: <BDBCC21442A22640A4ECE2C75A8E215AC38CC635AB@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • References: <BDBCC21442A22640A4ECE2C75A8E215AC38CC635AB@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0
Hi,
This is an example of what I mean about disclaimer in the body of a report being somewhat irrelevant.
Though the report did come out decently, there is still the problem of an un-chartered adhoc group speaking in the name of the GNSO and the rest of ICANN with a statement that received little or no community review.
Lately we have been lucky with things that are set up incorrectly producing a decent product (The ICANN Review teams and this). I believe, however, that each time this happens, it weakens the community's hold on its processes. 

avri


-------- Original Message --------
Subject:        [ccwg-internet-governance] CCWG contribution in ICANN's
homepage banner
Date:   Tue, 11 Mar 2014 10:00:04 -0700
From:   Alexandra Dans <>
To:     ccwg-internet-governance@xxxxxxxxx <ccwg-internet-governance@xxxxxxxxx>



Dear all,

The CCWG contribution is being shared from the first banner of ICANN’s
homepage.

See image below

Attachment: image004.png
Description: PNG image

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>