Dear Seun, thanks for your follow-up. Comments inline: On 17/11/2015 05:38, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
I am totally in support of the expansion and there is no question about that. What I am however saying is that this expansion request and approval be linked to the governing document (charter) one way or the other(once all the Chartering organisations have approved). We are already going through the process of expanding the scope and including/linking it up with the charter will not require any other process.
That's what is the problem: the risk is that any actual change to the charter will void the current charter and launch a process by which each SO/AC will need to re-approve the charter formally. Some chartering organisations might need to have a special call for this or might only be able to do that in a face to face meeting.
Like I said, it's a minor details that I thought we should just advice/hint/mention to the Co-Chairs in our acceptance response. Something in the line of "... We accept the expansion and we suggest it be linked to the charter as well". If ALAC is not fine with such inclusion, it still does not mean I am against the expansion.
In light of my explanation above, be careful what you wish for. I'd leave the determination of what process to take, to the co-chairs of the CWG Stewardship. After all, they are in touch with their chartering organisations and often in ICANN, things are presented in a certain way to avoid risking delays through unintended consequences. Kindest regards, Olivier