RE: [council] FW: Rec6 CWG Response to the Board Request

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Correct. There is a serious danger with these currently undefined CWGs,
that their work products be mistaken as some sort of consensus and/or
end run around the established policy processes.

Tim

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [council] FW: Rec6 CWG Response to the Board Request
> From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Tue, January 11, 2011 4:12 pm
> To: "'bruce.tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx'"
> <bruce.tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,        "'council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx'"
> <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> I think the point is that the Board should have directed the clarification 
> questions to the gnso and alac communities to get the responses and not a 
> working group of those communities.  Logic would dictate that the gnso and 
> alac would delegate the work to the working group (with oversight from the 
> respective councils).  This would ensure that when the board gets something 
> back, it would be supported by the community and not just individuals that 
> may not even be able to represent their own companies, much less their 
> constituencies or stake-holder groups.
> 
> Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.
> Vice President, Law & Policy
> NeuStar, Inc.
> Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Bruce Tonkin [mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2011 05:01 PM
> To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: RE: [council] FW: Rec6 CWG Response to the Board Request
> 
> 
> Hello Jeff,
> 
> >>  I am a little puzzled as to why there was direct communication from the 
> >> working group to the board and vice versa that did not involve the 
> >> community
> 
> There was a bit of both at Cartagena actually.  There was a public session 
> which I think I chaired, and also a chance given to the working group members 
> to explain their positions to a few Board members (certainly not a quorum of 
> Board members).   The Board asked as a follow up to get a formal response 
> following Cartagena on any revised position.  
> 
> Any feedback from the Council would be most welcome - especially as input 
> into the GAC/ICANN Board meeting in late Feb 2011. 
> 
> Regards,
> Bruce Tonkin