<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [council] CCWG Ig and NetMundial statements
- To: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [council] CCWG Ig and NetMundial statements
- From: "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2014 14:39:37 -0600
- Cc: "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- In-reply-to: <5316D3DB.5040702@acm.org>
- List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- References: <5316D3DB.5040702@acm.org>
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
hi Avri,
i’m just tuning back into this project. the draft i’m looking at is at
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BOpCmeE4YL3cat_6oN5RaNvDgvEYO-HS82gRzc_aRjo/mobilebasic?pli=1
is that the best snapshot of the current state of affairs? if so, it does have
what looks like a pretty carefully-worded introduction that talks about the
current status of ratification, and how the CCWG will notify NetMundial if such
ratification takes place. here’s the language as it stands while i type this
note:
"This contribution has been drafted using multi-stakeholder principles by the
ICANN Cross Community Working Group (CCWG) on Internet Governance, a group that
comprises members of ICANN’s Supporting Organisations (SO), Advisory Committees
(AC) and Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Stakeholder Groups
(SG)[d]. This bottom-up process involved up to five people from each of these
groups that comprise ICANN’s volunteer community. The concepts expressed in
this paper are the result of discussion having taken place on the working
group’s mailing list, the CCWG Wiki space created to support it and weekly
conference calls throughout the months of January and February 2014.
"Due to time pressures, the proposals expressed in this contribution have not,
so far, been ratified by the respective SOs, ACs and SGs of ICANN. Further
communication will advise the NetMundial Organizing Committee if such
ratification takes place before the meeting in Brazil."
is there a change to that draft that would address the issue you’re raising?
mikey
On Mar 5, 2014, at 1:35 AM, Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I am an observer in this group and see that it is working on a statement.
>
> Isn't this a statement that the various contributing SO/AC need to review
> before it gets sent in? Or are we comfortable with just letting them do their
> own thing and submit something that is in some sense in our name as a CCWG,
> but not vetted.
>
> The group process troubles me as it wasn't even able to complete a charter
> before starting to craft statements and has a unbalanced membership. In fact
> it is much more a GNSO group, though following no specific or guidelines,
> than a cross community one at this point as there has not been wide cross
> community buy-in yet.
>
> Of course I have no issue with a bunch of people signing their own names to
> anything they wish, but I would be against a group sending something out in
> the name of the cross community that had never even reviewed the WG's efforts.
>
> I do believe in the eventual utility of this group, but I would like to see
> it organized on a firm ross community footing before it starts making
> declarations to the world.
>
> avri
PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP
(ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|