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

[Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks guys for initiating the discussion.

I encourage others to chime in. This topic of community working groups is one 
that is obviously generating some uncertainty and, dare I say it, even some 
level of discomfort. It would therefore be helpful to further the discussion on 
the Council list and perhaps, plan a discussion item on this during one of our 
forthcoming Council teleconferences.

Thanks.

Stéphane

Le 12 janv. 2011 à 14:08, Tim Ruiz a écrit :

> 
> 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" 
> > Date: Tue, January 11, 2011 4:12 pm
> > To: "'bruce.tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx'"
> > , "'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 
> > 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
>