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 fÃ©vr. 2016 Ã 17:38, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca > a Ã©crit :

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