I agree with Leon and happy to help him with this. Raf Sent from my HTC ----- Reply message ----- From: "León Felipe Sánchez Ambía" <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> To: "Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond" <ocl@gih.com> Cc: <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: [ALAC] Statement regarding the CCWG submission to NETmundial Date: Wed, Apr 30, 2014 15:39 Dear all, I like Olivier’s idea and support Alan’s suggested statement. On another track, I believe that we also need to make a statement on the final document, apart from the CCWG submission. I will gladly hold the pen to draft that statement if you are ok with it and consider we should make a statement. all the best, León El 30/04/2014, a las 03:53, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> escribió:

Dear Evan,

that's not what the Public Comment period is about. It asks about the Statement of the CCWG which was sent to NetMundial. I support Alan's suggestion to have a short Statement endorsing the CCWG's report but we cannot use this to congratulate organizers and participants in a meeting.

That said, we can include in the Statement that we support the operation of the WG, we welcome the funding of participants to NetMundial and call upon ICANN to continue supporting participants financially in future meetings like NetMundial and the Internet Governance Forum. Kind regards,

Olivier

On 30/04/2014 07:06, Evan Leibovitch wrote:

...

Actually, now that the conference is over I believe that a new ALAC response is in order; one that congratulates the organizers and the participants for their innovation in approaching governance. We should (IMO) also endorse the final statement (while indicating areas where we would have preferred stronger language).

I am happy to help craft such a statement, when I return from dealing with personal matters at the end of this week. On Apr 29, 2014 11:54 PM, "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:

...

I have re-read the statement submitted to NETmundial. I believe that the ALAC can easily say that it supports the process by which this statement was developed as well as the full contents.

However, as events unfolded, with the exception of the concept of multistakeholderism, the issues on which the CCWG statement raised were not the issues that NETmundial focused on, nor were they central to the NETmundial outcomes document. In consideration of that and the lack of any other public comments submitted, I believe that there is no need for the ALAC to submit a statement.

Should the ALAC nonetheless feel that a submission is necessary, I suggest:

The ALAC would like to go on record as supporting the process that the

...

CCWG followed in drafting this statement, and supports the CCWG statement submitted to NETmundial.

See https://community.icann.org/x/lzbRAg

Alan _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac

At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+ Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)

_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac

At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)

-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html

_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac

At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)

_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)