ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [council] motion re charter for the Accountability CWG

  • Subject: Re: [council] motion re charter for the Accountability CWG
  • From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2014 19:43:38 -0600
  • Cc: GNSO Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "gnso-secs@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-secs@xxxxxxxxx>
  • In-reply-to: <CAC6NyrO=Yd_+ig3yu1J=PbrrrDCDX8ieU6uq1abSLS6zXskOTw@mail.gmail.com>
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • References: <3D6E1F70-7B77-48F4-BB1A-6E60E29036FA@anwaelte.de> <5457FEB2.1050201@acm.org> <CAC6NyrO=Yd_+ig3yu1J=PbrrrDCDX8ieU6uq1abSLS6zXskOTw@mail.gmail.com>
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0

Hi,

This is the same membership basis that was used for the CWG-Stewardship,
a charter the council already approved.  In fact ths cahrter was
patterned off of that with the missions and goals being different, but
the modalities being similar.  I do not recall any discussion during the
drafting about a larger representation.

Only the CSG-Internet had the larger membership count, it was the
exception given if long operation as an ad-hoc group without a charter.

Incidentally, the team from the GNSO on this drafting team consisted of:

*GNSO*:

Avri Doria

Keith Drazek

David Fares

*Thomas Rickert (co-chair)*



I hope that helps clarify.

avri



On 06-Nov-14 17:41, Gabriela Szlak wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> Thanks so much for the hard work on this.
>
> Regarding the charter, I would like to ask a clarifying question on the
> issue of membership of the CCWG.
>
> The charter says:
>
> *"Each of the chartering organizations shall appoint a minimum of 2 and a
> maximum of 5 members to the working group in accordance with their own
> rules and procedures"*
>
> ¿Could we clarify before the next council call what this means?
>
> I recall a long discussion in LA on membership regarding the Charter for
> the CCWG on IG so I would like to be sure we all understand the language,
> as I am not sure I do, and Susan and I need to report to BC members
and ask
> for guidance on this topic. There is a huge amount of work to be done on
> this CCWG and we believe that  diversity of expertise and viewpoints in
> membership is crucial to achieve to proposed goals.
>
> Thanks a lot,
> Gabi
>
>
>
> *Gabriela Szlak *
>
>
> *Skype:* gabrielaszlak
>
> *Twitter: @*GabiSzlak
>
>
> La información contenida en este e-mail es confidencial.
> The information in this e-mail is confidential.
>
>
> 2014-11-03 19:16 GMT-03:00 Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>:
>
>>
> Hi,
>
> I second the motion.
>
> As a member of the DT, I  also applaud the effort and cooperative spirit
> of the DT group.  We are getting better at starting up these CWG efforts,
> and I admit that the time we did it in looks like it may be far shorter
> than my predictions.
>
> avri
>
>
> On 04-Nov-14 05:52, Thomas Rickert wrote:
> >>> All,
> >>> please find attached for your consideration a motion considering the
> adoption of
> >>> the charter for the Enhancing Accountability CWG as well as the
> charter.
> >>>
> >>> Let me take the opportunity to applaud DT members, ICANN staff and my
> co-chair
> >>> Mathieu Weill on having produced the attached charter in a very short
> time span
> >>> in a most collaborative fashion.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Thomas
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
>
>>
>>
>




<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>