<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [council] CCWG Ig and NetMundial statements
Hi,
While listing the effort as un-chartered may seem a bit strong to some,
'Ad Hoc' is a venerable name and in fact is a name from our history the
"International Ad Hoc Committee (IAHC or the Ad Hoc Committee) in
September 1996, to resolve DNS management issues" of Green and White
paper fame.
I do agree with your constraints.
And yes, I am willing to work with you on finding an acceptable wording
for the disclaimer, despite my concerns that no one will reading it and
they will consider it a formal ICANN contribution.
avri
On 06-Mar-14 16:23, Mike O'Connor wrote:
ouch…
no agreed-to charter? that’s troubling to me too, from a process
standpoint.
i’d be OK
- not extending a formal GNSO Council endorsement, either at all or
until the SG/Constituencies have had a chance to weigh in
- putting a place for each AC/SO/SG/Constituency to endorse on the
submission and make it clear that none have yet
- rewording the disclaimer a bit.
i’m uncomfortable with a disclaimer that is as strong as what you are
suggesting though. using the words “unchartered” and “ad-hoc” seems
to err a bit too much the other way, almost invalidating all the work
that has been done, which seems a shame given how hard people have
worked.
does that show you a way forward? want to take a crack at revised
disclaimer language?
mikey
On Mar 6, 2014, at 9:50 AM, Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx> wrote:
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.)
PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE:
OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|