Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 6 and a way forward to include compromise text suggested by the Board
Let me resort to pragmatism. I know it may set a precedent, but I am willing to risk it. 1. We are already pretty much locking in what will be done in WS2 in Recommendation 12, including Human Rights. 2. As an AC Chair, I can definitively say that the workload associated with chartering, populating and finding chairs for a new CCWG is daunting, and not something we will approach frivolously. 3. Wearing my "I am not a lawyer" hat, but having spent a fair amount of time over the last several decades reading, writing and interpreting Bylaws, I cannot see having the ICANN Bylaws refer to a specific CCWG or a sub-part thereof. If they need to make a reference such as the one we are discussing, they should say the work will be carried out by an appropriately chartered, generally/widely supported, cross community working group. Let's not devote more time and bandwidth to this and get on with substantive issues. Alan At 08/02/2016 04:20 AM, Bruce Tonkin wrote:
Hello Tijani
- The Board seems to feel strongly that it would be advisable I would like Why it would be advisable for Board
From a bylaws perspective - we felt that the Chartering organisations should have the option to split some of the work stream 2 topics into separate CCWG's with perhaps different membership that is most interested and/or skilled in the topic.
As Alan and others have pointed out though - we still envisage that each CCWG should have broad participation from multiple SOs and ACs and basically have the same ability for open participation as the CCWG on accountability.
I could imagine that some participants of the CCWG on Accountability would become members of a CCWG on human rights and attend every meeting, and some members may become participants (and monitor the mailing list and attend when available).
The CCWG on Accountability still remains as an option to do all the work in work stream 2 - it is up to the chartering organisations to consider how best to manage the work. All we are doing is creating some flexibility.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
As one who has no real opinion on the HR aspects of the work and where it should ultimately come out, I would caution against chartering a second group exclusively for that purpose. First, as Alan notes, that would add administrative complexity to the task. More importantly, though, my experience is that single purpose groups tend to be less successful. Sometimes they err or the side of over-emphasizing a single issue without due consideration for countervailing resource constraints and competing values (the "if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail" syndrome). More problematically, single topic groups have a tendency to be marginalized and disregarded in the context of larger/broader concerns (think how hard it has been for privacy issues to come to the fore in the transatlantic discussions). They tend, in my experience, to gain more traction as part of a broader coalition of issues/events. I don't feel strongly, but I would fold the HR issues into a broader WS2 structure with a separate substructure underneath Cheers Paul Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key -----Original Message----- From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca] Sent: Monday, February 8, 2016 9:54 AM To: Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>; Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 6 and a way forward to include compromise text suggested by the Board Let me resort to pragmatism. I know it may set a precedent, but I am willing to risk it. 1. We are already pretty much locking in what will be done in WS2 in Recommendation 12, including Human Rights. 2. As an AC Chair, I can definitively say that the workload associated with chartering, populating and finding chairs for a new CCWG is daunting, and not something we will approach frivolously. 3. Wearing my "I am not a lawyer" hat, but having spent a fair amount of time over the last several decades reading, writing and interpreting Bylaws, I cannot see having the ICANN Bylaws refer to a specific CCWG or a sub-part thereof. If they need to make a reference such as the one we are discussing, they should say the work will be carried out by an appropriately chartered, generally/widely supported, cross community working group. Let's not devote more time and bandwidth to this and get on with substantive issues. Alan At 08/02/2016 04:20 AM, Bruce Tonkin wrote:
Hello Tijani
- The Board seems to feel strongly that it would be advisable I would like Why it would be advisable for Board
From a bylaws perspective - we felt that the Chartering organisations should have the option to split some of the work stream 2 topics into separate CCWG's with perhaps different membership that is most interested and/or skilled in the topic.
As Alan and others have pointed out though - we still envisage that each CCWG should have broad participation from multiple SOs and ACs and basically have the same ability for open participation as the CCWG on accountability.
I could imagine that some participants of the CCWG on Accountability would become members of a CCWG on human rights and attend every meeting, and some members may become participants (and monitor the mailing list and attend when available).
The CCWG on Accountability still remains as an option to do all the work in work stream 2 - it is up to the chartering organisations to consider how best to manage the work. All we are doing is creating some flexibility.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org 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
Hello Alan,
I cannot see having the ICANN Bylaws refer to a specific CCWG or a sub-part thereof. If they need to make a reference such as the one we are discussing, they should say the work will be carried out by an appropriately chartered, generally/widely supported, cross community working group.
Makes sense to me. Regards, Bruce Tonkin
Dear Leon, We are almost drafting Bylawy which should be a very high level text . référence on whether the existing CCWG or another CCWG could carry out the wiorks IS THE MAXIMUM. We do not need to enter or refer to such degree of détails. I there is of strong believe that the part dealing with one or more SO/AC ias highlighted below is not necessary and thus should be deleted + "by one or more Supporting Organizations or Advisory Committees" Regards Kavouss 2016-02-09 9:39 GMT+01:00 Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>:
Hello Alan,
I cannot see having the ICANN Bylaws refer to a specific CCWG or a sub-part thereof. If they need to make a reference such as the one we are discussing, they should say the work will be carried out by an appropriately chartered, generally/widely supported, cross community working group.
Makes sense to me.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
participants (4)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Bruce Tonkin -
Kavouss Arasteh -
Paul Rosenzweig