<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [council] CWG on Internet Govenrance Issues
- To: "jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx" <jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [council] CWG on Internet Govenrance Issues
- From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 19:31:13 +0000
- Accept-language: en-US
- In-reply-to: <028101ceeb9b$18cc1810$4a644830$@afilias.info>
- List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- References: <028101ceeb9b$18cc1810$4a644830$@afilias.info>
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Thread-index: Ac7rlvg1HJtK71ugS/+AOky1Wp5hxgAD6slw
- Thread-topic: [council] CWG on Internet Govenrance Issues
Jonathan,
Before offering use of the CWG principles as they stand, it might be a good
idea for you to talk to the chairs of other SOs and the ACs to see if they
would support that idea or if they would want to modify those principles in any
way. Some of them probably haven't seen those principles so they should be
sent to them first. An early action item for the group might be to review
those principles and decide whether they would work or whether they may need to
be modified for this effort.
Chuck
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson
Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2013 1:04 PM
To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [council] CWG on Internet Govenrance Issues
All,
At the Council meeting wrap-up in Buenos Aires, we talked about GNSO
participation in the CWG on internet governance and the Council and/or GNSO
Council chair's otential role.
At the time, I don't believe we were aware of the proposed role of ALAC / NCSG
as co-ordinators.
I think (from a Council perspective) we should probably now await the call for
further participation and respond to that, but I am open to any other
suggestions.
We could offer the CWG principles as they currently stand?
Jonathan
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|