- The Board seems to feel strongly that it would be advisable I would like Why it would be advisable for Board - It may well be that the "right" people to discuss a certain issue may not be the same as those on the current CCWG. Or may not be the ones with the interest, knowledge and time. Anyone who would be the « right » person to discuss the issue, who has the interest, knowledge and/or time, and who is not now on the CCWG may join as participant since the groupe is fully open. - Better opportunity to work in parallel In the CCWG, we have the experience of working in parallel in work parties. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tijani BEN JEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) Phone: +216 98 330 114 +216 52 385 114 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Le 7 févr. 2016 à 20:05, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> a écrit :
There are several possible reasons:
- The Board seems to feel strongly that it would be advisable - It may well be that the "right" people to discuss a certain issue may not be the same as those on the current CCWG. Or may not be the ones with the interest, knowledge and time. - Better opportunity to work in parallel
It may not happen, but if there is a will within the chartering organizations, why should it not be allowed?
But for the record, I was not necessarily advocating it in my reply, but trying to ensure that if it did end up in the proposal, that it be worded reasonably.
Alan
At 06/02/2016 12:20 PM, Tijani BEN JEMAA wrote:
If there is a reason for breaking the CCWG charter and taking some parts of WS 2 tasks out of the CCWG-accountability, I would like to know it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tijani BEN JEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) Phone: +216 98 330 114 +216 52 385 114 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Le 5 févr. 2016 à 17:38, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> > a écrit :
I think that we want a chartering process comparable to that of the CCWG. I presume that if a HR group were to come into existence and was not chartered by a reasonable number of orgs, then the Board would not agree to the "semi-binding" nature of the outcomes (forgive me inventing a new word to describe the CCWG-Board process previously agreed to).
Alan
At 05/02/2016 01:52 AM, Bruce Tonkin wrote:
Hello Alan,
I don't understand the concept of a Cross Community WG chartered by only one AC/SO.
Good pick up. Might be best described as "two or more", or "at least three" if you want a minimum threshold.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community