Re: [council] Request to no-objection on interpretation charter CCWG IG

[Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi,

I have no objection.

Thanks.

Amr

On Apr 28, 2015, at 4:10 PM, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> All,
>  
> Please see below from Rafik. I expect that this is something we can deal with 
> at our enxt GNSO Council meeting.
>  
> Any concerns?
>  
> Jonathan
>  
> From: Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: 27 April 2015 13:35
> To: Jonathan Robinson
> Cc: David Cake; Volker Greimann; Glen de Saint Géry; Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond
> Subject: Request to no-objection on interpretation charter CCWG IG
>  
> Dear Jonathan,
> In order to complete the transition of the Cross-Community Working Group 
> Internet Governance (CCWG IG) to a fully chartered CCWG, we seek your non 
> objection on an interpretation of the section on observers in the CCWG IG 
> charter to mean: "In addition, the CCWG-IG will be open to any interested 
> person as a participant. Participants may be from a chartering organization, 
> from a stakeholder group not represented in the CCWG-IG, or may be 
> self-appointed. Participants will be able to actively participate in and 
> attend all CCWG-IG meetings, work groups and sub-work groups. However, should 
> there be a need for a consensus call or decision, such consensus call or 
> decision will be limited to CCWG-IG members appointed by the chartering 
> organizations.”
> If you agree, could be so kind to convey the “no-objection” to us?
> Olivier Crepin-Leblond (ALAC), and Rafik Dammak (GNSO)
> Co-Chairs of the CCWG IG
>  
> Introduction and background. 
> At its meeting in Singapore the cross-community working group on Internet 
> Governance (CCWG IG), discussed how to complete its transition to the 
> formally chartered CCWG as envisioned by the chartering organizations. The 
> main issue that needs to be addressed is dealing with the current status of 
> (former) participants, taking into account the rules of the charter.
>  
> As you will recall the CCWG IG was originally an informal group, with no 
> charter. Participants of the original group felt it necessary to provide a 
> solid basis for its work and hence developed a charter, which was proposed to 
> all supporting organizations and advisory committees for adoption.   As you 
> will know the charter was adopted by the ALAC, ccNSO, GNSO and SSAC in the 
> September/ November 2014 timeframe. Following adoption of the charter some of 
> the chartering organizations appointed members and a co-chair to the CCWG IG 
> as envisioned in the charter, and one (SSAC) although adopting the charter, 
> reclined from its ability to appoint members. The newly appointed SO and AC 
> members included some of the participants of the former, informal Internet 
> Governance community group. To date the SO and AC have not appointed 
> observers as envisioned in the charter. As a result participants now include 
> newly appointed members, and people who have signed-up as participants in the 
> (former) informal Internet Governance group I.e. before it was chartered 
> (see:https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=43984275).   
>  
> In order to avoid to have to go through a formal charter changing process, we 
> seek to achieve an effective change through an agreed interpretation of the 
> term ”observers” in the charter.
> Current definition of membership. According to the current charter of the 
> CCWG IG membership of the CCWG includes members (appointed by the chartering 
> organisations, according to their own rules and procedures), observers and 
> experts. In this context observers are described as people who:"In addition, 
> all SOs and ACs may appoint Observers if permitted by and in accordance with 
> their own rules and procedures. Such Observers are entitled to participate in 
> WG deliberations on an equal footing with the Members except for formal 
> voting, when called for by the Co-Chairs of the WG. Voting is limited only to 
> Members. The number of Observers appointed by each SO and AC shall not exceed 
> the number of Members appointed by that SO or AC."
> The proposed changes.
> In order to complete the transition to the fully chartered CCWG IG, we seek 
> your non objection on an interpretation of the section on observers in the 
> CCWG IG charter to mean: "In addition, the CCWG-IG will be open to any 
> interested person as a participant. Participants may be from a chartering 
> organization, from a stakeholder group not represented in the CCWG-IG, or may 
> be self-appointed. Participants will be able to actively participate in and 
> attend all CCWG-IG meetings, work groups and sub-work groups. However, should 
> there be a need for a consensus call or decision, such consensus call or 
> decision will be limited to CCWG-IG members appointed by the chartering 
> organizations” (which is similar to the language in the charter of the CCWG- 
> Accountability) 
>  
> The major changes would be: 
> ·         No limit on the number of observers/ participants;
> ·         Self-nomination as participant versus appointment by a chartering 
> organization, allowing for broader participation
> The benefits of this interpretation would be normalization of membership 
> rules across the CCWG and CWGs (best practice) and providing clarity around 
> “legacy” participation.
> Before the CCWG IG was chartered, community members participated and 
> participate in the activities of this particular CCWG (“legacy” 
> participants). To date these participants have not been appointed by a SO or 
> AC. Experience with the CWG Stewardship and CCWG Accountability has shown 
> that broad participation, with additional obligations and privileges for 
> appointed members, provides a fair and workable basis and at the same time 
> increases transparency, interest in the work, and active participation of the 
> broader community and community members.
>  
> The drafting team introduced a restrictive membership and participation rule 
> at the time of drafting in response to risks of a WG without charter, 
> un-clarity of representation on the WG and interest WG represents in its 
> public statements.  However, with charter in place resulting in a clearly 
> defined role for chartering organizations and members, and the positive 
> experience to date with participants on the CWG Stewardship and CCWG 
> Accountability, a more liberal interpretation of the “observer” rule as 
> described above is advised, as it would increase the value to the community 
> and legitimacy of the CCWG IG.