Re: [council] CWG on Internet Govenrance Issues
hi Amr, i've done as you suggest and got a bite. :-) thanks, mikey On Nov 28, 2013, at 9:35 AM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Mikey, > > The Wiki page hasn’t been set up yet, but should be soon. I also recommend > you contact Rafik and Olivier directly and volunteer to participate in > drafting a charter. That would be great of you, and I can’t see why they > wouldn’t think so too. I’m sure it’ll be a better charter if you’re involved. > > Thanks. > > Amr > > On Nov 28, 2013, at 1:45 PM, Mike O'Connor <mike@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> hi all, >> >> this is helpful discussion indeed. i'm getting ready to forward this thread >> to several people and think it would be helpful to have a few things >> included. can somebody chime in with: >> >> - a link to the wiki page that Amr mentioned >> >> - a pointer to any kind of a charter that the group has started to work on >> >> - suggestions as to the best way for interested SG/C's to indicate their >> interest in participating >> >> i think part of what's going on is that a) things are moving fast and b) the >> rules of the road aren't clear yet. i don't feel that i'm qualified to >> participate in the "content" part of the "get ready for Brazil" effort, but >> i would be happy to assist with slapping together a quick charter if Rafik, >> Olivier and others would find that helpful. here's a link to a series of >> chartering questions i've cobbled together over the years that might be >> useful in crafting a charter, whether i'm involved in that or not (many of >> you have seen these before). >> >> >> http://www.haven2.com/index.php/tools/mikeys-pretty-good-project-definition-worksheet >> >> thanks all, >> >> mikey >> >> >> On Nov 28, 2013, at 4:33 AM, "Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >> wrote: >> >>> Thanks Amr & Avri, >>> >>> I understood Fadi’s invitation similarly to you Avri and, personally, can >>> see the NCSG / ALAC initiative for what it seems to be i.e. a good faith >>> attempt to jump on the train before it leaves the station. >>> >>> Also, I certainly do not believe any SG/C needs the Council’s blessing or >>> permission to participate. Where the Council MAY be able to help is >>> assisting with the communication / co-ordination to ensure all GNSO groups >>> are fully aware of what is going on and any recent background. This thread >>> seems to have been helpful in that context. >>> >>> Jonathan >>> >>> From: avri [mailto:avri@xxxxxxx] >>> Sent: 28 November 2013 00:52 >>> To: <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> Subject: Re: [council] CWG on Internet Govenrance Issues >>> >>> Hi >>> >>> I had understood it that Fadi invited the whole community to do something. >>> So, it wasn't that he specifically invited the non commercials of NCSG and >>> users of ALAC, but rather that like everyone else we heard the invitation >>> at the Wednesday early morning meeting, and decided to act on it. >>> >>> In doing so, the idea was, we saw the train leaving and we figured we would >>> jump on before it left without us. We also extended an invitation for all >>> other SG/C to join us when we announced in the forum that we had taken up >>> the offer and gotten the ball rolling. >>> >>> Rafik, the NCSG chair and Olivier the ALAC chair are currently facilitating >>> this effort. I suggest other SG/C talk to them about joining in the effort >>> if interested. I also understand that some may decide to stand aside from >>> this CWG on bottom-up principle. I can respect that. But at this point we >>> are so far beyond the bottom-up principle on so many aspects of ICANN >>> actions, I find that it is a principle mostly honored in the breech. >>> >>> I appreciate that Sally accepted that this effort was the start of response >>> to their request for community participation. I also see no reason why on a >>> cross community wg, NCSG should need the council's permission to >>> participate. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> >>> avri >>> >>> Sent from a T-Mobile 4G LTE Device >>> >>> >>> >>> -------- Original message -------- >>> From: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx> >>> Date: 11/27/2013 19:15 (GMT-05:00) >>> To: John Berard <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> Cc: "<jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>" >>> <jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>,"<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>" >>> <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> Subject: Re: [council] CWG on Internet Govenrance Issues >>> >>> >>> Jonathan and John, >>> >>> The NCSG/ALAC meeting where this idea was proposed started immediately >>> following the Council wrap-up session. It was not, to my knowledge, an >>> initiative born from any invitation of any kind nor imposed by anyone from >>> the “top” or elsewhere. It was more of a discussion amongst civil society >>> actors within the ICANN community to coordinate efforts to ensure NCSG/ALAC >>> representation in whatever process leads up to the Brazil summit (or >>> whatever they’ve decided to call it) in April 2014. In fact, one of the >>> outputs of the meeting was a suggestion to draft a joint NCSG/ALAC letter >>> addressed to Fadi expressing a desire to engage in the process. >>> >>> During the meeting, it was also decided that inviting the broader ICANN >>> community to the discussion using a Wiki as a platform for cross community >>> input on the topic was a good idea. The term “Cross-Community Working >>> Group” was used in an email message on an NCSG list, but I am not aware of >>> any actual WG or drafting team in the pipeline. Just a Wiki-based cross >>> community discussion platform. If this changes, if I learn something I do >>> not know now, or when the Wiki goes online, I’ll be sure to send a note to >>> all of you on the Council list to make sure you’re all informed. >>> >>> Sound good? >>> >>> Thanks. >>> >>> Amr >>> >>> On Nov 27, 2013, at 7:22 PM, John Berard <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> >>> Jonathan, >>> >>> The work of the drafting team is aimed at creating an aligned PDP and >>> reflects a bottom-up sensibility >>> >>> This CWG on Internet Governance is more politics than policy and has been >>> imposed from the top, >>> >>> What I would like to know is who issued the invitation to the ALAC and >>> NCSG, what was the rationale and why the NCSG accepted without consultation >>> with the broader GNSO of which they are a part? >>> >>> Were other ACs and SOs invited? Did they decline? >>> >>> I am aware that I am veering toward paranoia, but it's not inappropriate if >>> they are really out to get you. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Berard >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>> On Nov 27, 2013, at 1:04 PM, "Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> wrote: >>> >>> 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 >>> >> >> >> PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: >> OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) >> > PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) Attachment:
smime.p7s
|