<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [council] CCWG Ig and NetMundial statements
Hi,
My problem is with a un-chartered ad-hoc group making a statement in any
name but the name of its members. Even if it contains a weak and
confusing disclaimer. They are not an ICANN cross community working
group by any definition of ICANN WG.
If they were to call themselves the CC Ad-hoc group on Ig I would be
less insistent. But until they have managed to go through the gruel of
chartering I think we are messing with the processes we are supposed to
guard if we allow them to call themselves a CCWG in a submission to an
international audience.
I know it may seem petty to some, but in these international fora,
something that comes with an official sounding name tends to be treated
as the official work, even if there is a disclaimer (who reads those?)
And in the disclaimer I would request it be stronger and that it
indicate it is not a chartered group within ICANN.
It is not our job to get into its content, unless perhaps requested to
do so by our Stakeholder groups, but we want to be careful about even
appearing to endorse it without having given the group an official status.
avri
On 05-Mar-14 20:39, Mike O'Connor wrote:
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
<mailto: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
<http://www.haven2.com>, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook,
LinkedIn, etc.)
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|