Re: [council] CCWG Ig and NetMundial statements

["Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>]

OK,

here’s an idea — what if you and i depart from the Council list and have a 
conversation with Rafik and Olivier to at least let them know what we’re up to 
and get their reactions/course-corrections.  we could forward this thread to 
them as a starting point, or come at it some other way if you’d prefer.

then, at least the two of us and maybe the four of us could do some drafting 
and then return to this list with the result for refinement/approval and maybe 
they could do the same.

we’ve only got a couple days before the deadline so this would have to be 
pretty crisp work, but it seems like we could that.  

does that work?  (question aimed both at Avri and the rest of the Council)

mikey


On Mar 6, 2014, at 1:10 PM, Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> 
> Hi,
> 
> They are still the conveners.
> 
> avri
> 
> On 06-Mar-14 19:04, Mike O'Connor wrote:
>> hi again,
>> 
>> thanks Avri.  before we dive into detailed word smithing, should we touch 
>> bases with the leaders of the CCWG and see if they’d like to join the 
>> effort?  Olivier and Rafik were doing that way back when i was involved.  
>> are they still, or are there more/different people doing that?
>> 
>> mikey
>> 
>> 
>> On Mar 6, 2014, at 10:43 AM, Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> 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.)
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 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.)