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
> 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
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community