Re: [council] motion re charter for the Accountability CWG
Hello Heather and everyone, Following up on Marika¹s email below, it may be helpful also to note that this model for membership numbers seems to be emerging as the primary CWG model, having now been used most recently in the CWG-Principles, the CWG for the IANA Stewardship Transition, and now the proposed CWG on Accountability. As staff supporting each of these groups, we have observed that each Drafting Team does carefully consider the question before deciding whether to adopt this model or a version thereof (e.g. the CWG on Use of Country & Territory Names ended up with a more open-ended model). Where there is a limit on Member numbers, all the Charters contemplate non-Members (whether they are called Observers or Participants) participating on an equal footing with Members, and further provide that the CWG must always seek to act by consensus of all participants. As such, the only difference between a Member and a participant would arise only in the unlikely ³last ditch² instance where the Co-Chairs ultimately determine that a poll which as you all know is not necessarily a formal vote is the only way that will assist them in determining the final consensus of the group,. In such hopefully-rare cases, only Members would be polled. On Heather¹s specific question relating to CWG-Principles membership, like other CWG charters it allows each participating SO/AC to appoint its own Members (and in this case, Observers also). For the GNSO, this was visualized as a call for volunteers rather than via Council appointment, with the implicit ³backstop² that should the numerical limit be exceeded, it would be proper for the GNSO Council in its role as manager of the policy process to discuss and facilitate the resolution of the matter should it not be a problem otherwise resolvable by the relevant SG/C leaders. I should note that this point was specifically discussed by the DT responsible for the Charter for the CWG-Principles, including the options for appointing vs. relying on volunteers. The decision as to the proper mechanism to determine this question in other CWGs may be different depending on that particular DT¹s view of the circumstances. Where the Council may have a question as to the DT¹s consideration of particular circumstances, it would be appropriate for it to ask the DT Co-Chairs to demonstrate that this was done. In relation to the current motion pending before the Council, Thomas would be the best person to provide further background. I hope this helps, Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx From: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Monday, November 10, 2014 at 3:09 AM To: Heather Forrest <Heather.Forrest@xxxxxxxxxx>, Mary Wong <mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx> Cc: GNSO Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: Re: [council] motion re charter for the Accountability CWG > GNSO Operating Rules and Procedures > Dear Heather, > > I¹ll let Mary answer your specific question regarding the CWG on Framework of > Operating Principles, but in relation to the creation to the Accountability > CWG which triggered the original question, the proposal is that similar to > what was done in the case of the IANA Stewardship Transition CWG, one member > is appointed by the Council to serve as the co-chair for the CWG while the > other 4 members are chosen by each Stakeholder Group (one per SG). It is up to > each SG to determine the process by which this selection takes place, taking > into account the requirements of the charter, namely: > * Have sufficient expertise to participate in the applicable subject matter > (see for example > https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/enhancing-accountability-faqs-2014-08-22 > -en#12 for areas identified for expertise); > * Commit to actively participate in the activities of the CWG on an ongoing > and long-term basis; and > * Where appropriate, solicit and communicate the views and concerns of > individuals in the organization that appoints them. > > The outcome of this selection process is communicated directly to the staff > supporting the CCWG, there is no intermediate vote / motion by the Council > required. Although the charter doesn¹t spell this out, my understanding is > that if at any point any of the members of the CCWG need to be replaced, for > whatever reason, the SG that appointed the member that needs replacement would > be expected to select such a replacement, apart from the co-chair which would > need reappointment by the GNSO Council. > > It is worth emphasising that in addition to members, which serve a specific > role in ensuring that the GNSO Council / SG stays up to date, questions / > input are channelled back accordingly and participate in consensus calls > should any be necessary, anyone can join this effort as a participant and > contribute in the same way as members do. > > I hopes this clarifies some aspects of your question. > > Best regards, > > Marika > > From: Heather Forrest <Heather.Forrest@xxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Monday 10 November 2014 06:47 > To: Mary Wong <mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx> > Cc: GNSO Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Subject: RE: [council] motion re charter for the Accountability CWG > > Dear Mary, > > Following up on Gabi¹s question below, unfortunately the process of membership > isn¹t clear to me, either. > > For example, are all Members now appointed to the CWG on Framework of > Operating Principles for Future CWGs? I understood that members had not all > been appointed, and if that¹s correct, what is the process for appointing new > members? Council motion? Other? > > Apologies for perhaps asking a dumb question while I am new to GNSO > procedures. > > Many thanks and best wishes, > > Heather > > > From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On > Behalf Of Mary Wong > Sent: Saturday, 8 November 2014 3:08 AM > Cc: GNSO Council List > Subject: 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 <mailto:avri@xxxxxxx> >> <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
|