Re: [council] motion re charter for the Accountability CWG
Hello Gabi and all, FWIW the "minimum of 2/maximum of 5² model for membership in a Cross Community Working Group (CWG) was also applied to the ongoing CWG that¹s developing a Framework of Operating Principles for Future CWGs, co-chaired by Becky Burr (ccNSO) and John Berard (GNSO). Cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx> Date: Thursday, November 6, 2014 at 8:43 PM Cc: GNSO Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "gnso-secs@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-secs@xxxxxxxxx> Subject: Re: [council] motion re charter for the Accountability CWG > 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> <mailto: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 >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> > > > Attachment:
smime.p7s
|