Re: [ALAC] Discussion: CWG-Stewardship role in implementation
Seun, I believe that this lightweight process is instead of updating the charter, which would require new drafting and then formal action on behalf of all of the chartering bodies to approve the revision. If the chartering bodies all agree to this method, we have effectively changed the mandate of the CWG without having to go through the formalities - quicker and easier. These messages (asking for and getting permission from the chartering bodies) will form part of the overall documentation for the CWG and should be sufficient. Alan At 16/11/2015 11:55 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
Hello,
I believe it's in order and I recommend that while ALAC supports this, we should recommend that the CWG charter be updated accordingly or at least the communiqué be formerly referenced in the charter.
Regards Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 16 Nov 2015 16:47, "Alan Greenberg" <<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote: Please see following message.
I believe this makes sense. If anyone has concerns with this, please let us know. Based on any negative comments, I will initiate a Consensus Call or formal vote next Monday, 23 November. The Consensus Call or vote will be for ALAC Members only, but of course, the discussion is open to anyone on this list.
Alan
To: ALAC, CCNSO, GAC, GNSO, SSAC Cc: CWG-Stewardship, ICG, CRISP, IANAPLAN, CCWG-Accountability, ICANN Implementation & ICANN Policy Staff.
Dear Chartering Organizations of the CWG IANA Stewardship,
Subject: CWG-Stewardship role in implementation
At ICANN54 in Dublin, the IANA Stewardship Coordination Group (ICG) confirmed designation of the operational communities to be responsible for direct implementation oversight of their proposals.
The CWG-Stewardship also met during the course of ICANN54 and discussed this role and we continued this discussion in a subsequent meeting on Thursday 5 November 2015. An oversight role is not specifically detailed in our Charter, but it is the CWG-Stewardshipâs view that our role in implementation is to ensure that the implementation is consistent with the CWG-Stewardship Final Proposal and furthermore, to provide input on the implementation work when required by staff working on the implementation or, if and when necessary, to bring the implementation work back in line with the intent of the Final Proposal.
In our view, the most logical option is to have the CWG-Stewardship working group continue in its current form and with the responsibility to monitor the implementation and provide input where needed. Of course, this responsibility would include regular updates to the Chartering Organizations via the appointed members as well as consultations with the Chartering Organizations should issues be identified that are deemed without this specific remit.
We note here for your information, that while the CWG-Stewardship Final Proposal was submitted in June 2015, the CWG-Stewardship has remained active and therefore available when needed. This has included being available to answer questions from the ICG, or to monitor the CCWG-Accountability dependencies and to coordinate with the other operational communities on shared issues such as IANA intellectual property rights.
As the CWG-Stewardship Charter does not specifically address implementation, we would like to ensure that the CWG-Stewardshipâs proposed approach in relation to implementation is not inconsistent with the intent of the Chartering Organizations concerning the scope and role of the CWG-Stewardship. We therefore propose to proceed to oversee the implementation work as described above unless there are objections from one or more Chartering Organizations.
We would like to emphasize that the CWG-Stewardship does not intend to change its working methods in light of this ongoing role. The group will remain open to anyone who wishes to join, and we will welcome informed individuals with relevant implementation and operational experience to join the CWG-Stewardship in this next phase.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter and for your ongoing support of our work. Please let us know of any concerns by no later than 30 November 2015.
Jonathan Robinson & Lise Fuhr CWG-Stewardship co-Chairs
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list <mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
Hello Alan, What we are basically doing by this request is modifying the charter, that is exactly the process that is happening right now[1] so I don't really think there will be any other issue/challenge with referencing the update in the charter. It is the charter that determines the scope of work of the CWG and when there is an expansion (which is agreed to by the Chartering organisation) the charter should reflect such. While I support the expansion of CWG scope to cover the intent of the request, I believe it should be reflected in the charter. This will not require more process than we are already going through right now. That said since Co-Chairs have already sent out the message in this manner(which is cool), the CWG should reference this document (with formal approval of Chartering organisations in the charter). It's a minor process/documentation that we should not ignore and let go on. Regards 1. In the event it is decided that the charter needs to be modified to address the omission or unreasonable impact, the co-chairs may propose to modify the charter. A modification shall only be effective after adoption of the adjusted charter by the chartering organizations in accordance with their own rules and procedures. Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 16 Nov 2015 21:06, "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
Seun, I believe that this lightweight process is instead of updating the charter, which would require new drafting and then formal action on behalf of all of the chartering bodies to approve the revision. If the chartering bodies all agree to this method, we have effectively changed the mandate of the CWG without having to go through the formalities - quicker and easier.
These messages (asking for and getting permission from the chartering bodies) will form part of the overall documentation for the CWG and should be sufficient.
Alan
At 16/11/2015 11:55 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
Hello,
I believe it's in order and I recommend that while ALAC supports this, we should recommend that the CWG charter be updated accordingly or at least the communiqué be formerly referenced in the charter.
Regards Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 16 Nov 2015 16:47, "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca > wrote: Please see following message.
I believe this makes sense. If anyone has concerns with this, please let us know. Based on any negative comments, I will initiate a Consensus Call or formal vote next Monday, 23 November. The Consensus Call or vote will be for ALAC Members only, but of course, the discussion is open to anyone on this list.
Alan
To: ALAC, CCNSO, GAC, GNSO, SSAC Cc: CWG-Stewardship, ICG, CRISP, IANAPLAN, CCWG-Accountability, ICANN Implementation & ICANN Policy Staff.
Dear Chartering Organizations of the CWG IANA Stewardship,
Subject: CWG-Stewardship role in implementation
At ICANN54 in Dublin, the IANA Stewardship Coordination Group (ICG) confirmed designation of the operational communities to be responsible for direct implementation oversight of their proposals.
The CWG-Stewardship also met during the course of ICANN54 and discussed this role and we continued this discussion in a subsequent meeting on Thursday 5 November 2015. An oversight role is not specifically detailed in our Charter, but it is the CWG-Stewardship’s view that our role in implementation is to ensure that the implementation is consistent with the CWG-Stewardship Final Proposal and furthermore, to provide input on the implementation work when required by staff working on the implementation or, if and when necessary, to bring the implementation work back in line with the intent of the Final Proposal.
In our view, the most logical option is to have the CWG-Stewardship working group continue in its current form and with the responsibility to monitor the implementation and provide input where needed. Of course, this responsibility would include regular updates to the Chartering Organizations via the appointed members as well as consultations with the Chartering Organizations should issues be identified that are deemed without this specific remit.
We note here for your information, that while the CWG-Stewardship Final Proposal was submitted in June 2015, the CWG-Stewardship has remained active and therefore available when needed. This has included being available to answer questions from the ICG, or to monitor the CCWG-Accountability dependencies and to coordinate with the other operational communities on shared issues such as IANA intellectual property rights.
As the CWG-Stewardship Charter does not specifically address implementation, we would like to ensure that the CWG-Stewardship’s proposed approach in relation to implementation is not inconsistent with the intent of the Chartering Organizations concerning the scope and role of the CWG-Stewardship. We therefore propose to proceed to oversee the implementation work as described above unless there are objections from one or more Chartering Organizations.
We would like to emphasize that the CWG-Stewardship does not intend to change its working methods in light of this ongoing role. The group will remain open to anyone who wishes to join, and we will welcome informed individuals with relevant implementation and operational experience to join the CWG-Stewardship in this next phase.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter and for your ongoing support of our work. Please let us know of any concerns by no later than 30 November 2015.
Jonathan Robinson & Lise Fuhr CWG-Stewardship co-Chairs
_______________________________________________ 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...)
Dear Seun, my understanding is that no part of the email from the co-Chairs of the CWG Stewardship contains a proposal to "change the charter". If such a suggestion was made, there would need to be a detailed list of the changes to be made in the charter, with the previous text given and the replacement text (or added text) crafted and clearly shared. The amendments would then need to be examined by all SOs and ACs and voted on. My understanding is that the co-Chairs wanted to avoid all of this and just provide notice to SOs/ACs about an extension to the initially defined mission. No vote needed if there is no objection from any Chartering Organisation. Kindest regards, Olivier On 16/11/2015 19:14, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
Hello Alan,
What we are basically doing by this request is modifying the charter, that is exactly the process that is happening right now[1] so I don't really think there will be any other issue/challenge with referencing the update in the charter. It is the charter that determines the scope of work of the CWG and when there is an expansion (which is agreed to by the Chartering organisation) the charter should reflect such.
While I support the expansion of CWG scope to cover the intent of the request, I believe it should be reflected in the charter. This will not require more process than we are already going through right now.
That said since Co-Chairs have already sent out the message in this manner(which is cool), the CWG should reference this document (with formal approval of Chartering organisations in the charter). It's a minor process/documentation that we should not ignore and let go on.
Regards 1. In the event it is decided that the charter needs to be modified to address the omission or unreasonable impact, the co-chairs may propose to modify the charter. A modification shall only be effective after adoption of the adjusted charter by the chartering organizations in accordance with their own rules and procedures.
Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 16 Nov 2015 21:06, "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> wrote:
Seun, I believe that this lightweight process is instead of updating the charter, which would require new drafting and then formal action on behalf of all of the chartering bodies to approve the revision. If the chartering bodies all agree to this method, we have effectively changed the mandate of the CWG without having to go through the formalities - quicker and easier.
These messages (asking for and getting permission from the chartering bodies) will form part of the overall documentation for the CWG and should be sufficient.
Alan
At 16/11/2015 11:55 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
Hello,
I believe it's in order and I recommend that while ALAC supports this, we should recommend that the CWG charter be updated accordingly or at least the communiqué be formerly referenced in the charter.
Regards Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 16 Nov 2015 16:47, "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> > wrote:
Please see following message.
I believe this makes sense. If anyone has concerns with this, please let us know. Based on any negative comments, I will initiate a Consensus Call or formal vote next Monday, 23 November. The Consensus Call or vote will be for ALAC Members only, but of course, the discussion is open to anyone on this list.
Alan
To: ALAC, CCNSO, GAC, GNSO, SSAC Cc: CWG-Stewardship, ICG, CRISP, IANAPLAN, CCWG-Accountability, ICANN Implementation & ICANN Policy Staff.
Dear Chartering Organizations of the CWG IANA Stewardship,
Subject: CWG-Stewardship role in implementation
At ICANN54 in Dublin, the IANA Stewardship Coordination Group (ICG) confirmed designation of the operational communities to be responsible for direct implementation oversight of their proposals.
The CWG-Stewardship also met during the course of ICANN54 and discussed this role and we continued this discussion in a subsequent meeting on Thursday 5 November 2015. An oversight role is not specifically detailed in our Charter, but it is the CWG-Stewardship’s view that our role in implementation is to ensure that the implementation is consistent with the CWG-Stewardship Final Proposal and furthermore, to provide input on the implementation work when required by staff working on the implementation or, if and when necessary, to bring the implementation work back in line with the intent of the Final Proposal.
In our view, the most logical option is to have the CWG-Stewardship working group continue in its current form and with the responsibility to monitor the implementation and provide input where needed. Of course, this responsibility would include regular updates to the Chartering Organizations via the appointed members as well as consultations with the Chartering Organizations should issues be identified that are deemed without this specific remit.
We note here for your information, that while the CWG-Stewardship Final Proposal was submitted in June 2015, the CWG-Stewardship has remained active and therefore available when needed. This has included being available to answer questions from the ICG, or to monitor the CCWG-Accountability dependencies and to coordinate with the other operational communities on shared issues such as IANA intellectual property rights.
As the CWG-Stewardship Charter does not specifically address implementation, we would like to ensure that the CWG-Stewardship’s proposed approach in relation to implementation is not inconsistent with the intent of the Chartering Organizations concerning the scope and role of the CWG-Stewardship. We therefore propose to proceed to oversee the implementation work as described above unless there are objections from one or more Chartering Organizations.
We would like to emphasize that the CWG-Stewardship does not intend to change its working methods in light of this ongoing role. The group will remain open to anyone who wishes to join, and we will welcome informed individuals with relevant implementation and operational experience to join the CWG-Stewardship in this next phase.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter and for your ongoing support of our work. Please let us know of any concerns by no later than 30 November 2015.
Jonathan Robinson & Lise Fuhr CWG-Stewardship co-Chairs
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac <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...) <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+%28A...>
_______________________________________________ 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...)
Hello all, I agree that the whole point of the Co-Chairs e-mail is precisely avoid going into a more bureaucratic process. I support the expansion of the CWG’s role and would agree on the ALAC supporting the Co-Chairs e-mail. Best regards, León
El 16/11/2015, a las 6:10 p.m., Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> escribió:
Dear Seun,
my understanding is that no part of the email from the co-Chairs of the CWG Stewardship contains a proposal to "change the charter". If such a suggestion was made, there would need to be a detailed list of the changes to be made in the charter, with the previous text given and the replacement text (or added text) crafted and clearly shared. The amendments would then need to be examined by all SOs and ACs and voted on.
My understanding is that the co-Chairs wanted to avoid all of this and just provide notice to SOs/ACs about an extension to the initially defined mission. No vote needed if there is no objection from any Chartering Organisation.
Kindest regards,
Olivier
On 16/11/2015 19:14, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
Hello Alan,
What we are basically doing by this request is modifying the charter, that is exactly the process that is happening right now[1] so I don't really think there will be any other issue/challenge with referencing the update in the charter. It is the charter that determines the scope of work of the CWG and when there is an expansion (which is agreed to by the Chartering organisation) the charter should reflect such.
While I support the expansion of CWG scope to cover the intent of the request, I believe it should be reflected in the charter. This will not require more process than we are already going through right now.
That said since Co-Chairs have already sent out the message in this manner(which is cool), the CWG should reference this document (with formal approval of Chartering organisations in the charter). It's a minor process/documentation that we should not ignore and let go on.
Regards 1. In the event it is decided that the charter needs to be modified to address the omission or unreasonable impact, the co-chairs may propose to modify the charter. A modification shall only be effective after adoption of the adjusted charter by the chartering organizations in accordance with their own rules and procedures.
Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 16 Nov 2015 21:06, "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> wrote: Seun, I believe that this lightweight process is instead of updating the charter, which would require new drafting and then formal action on behalf of all of the chartering bodies to approve the revision. If the chartering bodies all agree to this method, we have effectively changed the mandate of the CWG without having to go through the formalities - quicker and easier.
These messages (asking for and getting permission from the chartering bodies) will form part of the overall documentation for the CWG and should be sufficient.
Alan
At 16/11/2015 11:55 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
Hello,
I believe it's in order and I recommend that while ALAC supports this, we should recommend that the CWG charter be updated accordingly or at least the communiqué be formerly referenced in the charter.
Regards Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 16 Nov 2015 16:47, "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> > wrote: Please see following message.
I believe this makes sense. If anyone has concerns with this, please let us know. Based on any negative comments, I will initiate a Consensus Call or formal vote next Monday, 23 November. The Consensus Call or vote will be for ALAC Members only, but of course, the discussion is open to anyone on this list.
Alan
To: ALAC, CCNSO, GAC, GNSO, SSAC Cc: CWG-Stewardship, ICG, CRISP, IANAPLAN, CCWG-Accountability, ICANN Implementation & ICANN Policy Staff.
Dear Chartering Organizations of the CWG IANA Stewardship,
Subject: CWG-Stewardship role in implementation
At ICANN54 in Dublin, the IANA Stewardship Coordination Group (ICG) confirmed designation of the operational communities to be responsible for direct implementation oversight of their proposals.
The CWG-Stewardship also met during the course of ICANN54 and discussed this role and we continued this discussion in a subsequent meeting on Thursday 5 November 2015. An oversight role is not specifically detailed in our Charter, but it is the CWG-Stewardship’s view that our role in implementation is to ensure that the implementation is consistent with the CWG-Stewardship Final Proposal and furthermore, to provide input on the implementation work when required by staff working on the implementation or, if and when necessary, to bring the implementation work back in line with the intent of the Final Proposal.
In our view, the most logical option is to have the CWG-Stewardship working group continue in its current form and with the responsibility to monitor the implementation and provide input where needed. Of course, this responsibility would include regular updates to the Chartering Organizations via the appointed members as well as consultations with the Chartering Organizations should issues be identified that are deemed without this specific remit.
We note here for your information, that while the CWG-Stewardship Final Proposal was submitted in June 2015, the CWG-Stewardship has remained active and therefore available when needed. This has included being available to answer questions from the ICG, or to monitor the CCWG-Accountability dependencies and to coordinate with the other operational communities on shared issues such as IANA intellectual property rights.
As the CWG-Stewardship Charter does not specifically address implementation, we would like to ensure that the CWG-Stewardship’s proposed approach in relation to implementation is not inconsistent with the intent of the Chartering Organizations concerning the scope and role of the CWG-Stewardship. We therefore propose to proceed to oversee the implementation work as described above unless there are objections from one or more Chartering Organizations.
We would like to emphasize that the CWG-Stewardship does not intend to change its working methods in light of this ongoing role. The group will remain open to anyone who wishes to join, and we will welcome informed individuals with relevant implementation and operational experience to join the CWG-Stewardship in this next phase.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter and for your ongoing support of our work. Please let us know of any concerns by no later than 30 November 2015.
Jonathan Robinson & Lise Fuhr CWG-Stewardship co-Chairs
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac>
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org <http://www.atlarge.icann.org/> ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+%28A...>
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac>
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org <http://www.atlarge.icann.org/> ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) <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...)
I also support the expansion and the co-Chair note Vanda Scartezini Sent from my iPhone Sorry for typos On 17 de nov de 2015, at 00:17, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> wrote: Hello all, I agree that the whole point of the Co-Chairs e-mail is precisely avoid going into a more bureaucratic process. I support the expansion of the CWG’s role and would agree on the ALAC supporting the Co-Chairs e-mail. Best regards, León El 16/11/2015, a las 6:10 p.m., Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com<mailto:ocl@gih.com>> escribió: Dear Seun, my understanding is that no part of the email from the co-Chairs of the CWG Stewardship contains a proposal to "change the charter". If such a suggestion was made, there would need to be a detailed list of the changes to be made in the charter, with the previous text given and the replacement text (or added text) crafted and clearly shared. The amendments would then need to be examined by all SOs and ACs and voted on. My understanding is that the co-Chairs wanted to avoid all of this and just provide notice to SOs/ACs about an extension to the initially defined mission. No vote needed if there is no objection from any Chartering Organisation. Kindest regards, Olivier On 16/11/2015 19:14, Seun Ojedeji wrote: Hello Alan, What we are basically doing by this request is modifying the charter, that is exactly the process that is happening right now[1] so I don't really think there will be any other issue/challenge with referencing the update in the charter. It is the charter that determines the scope of work of the CWG and when there is an expansion (which is agreed to by the Chartering organisation) the charter should reflect such. While I support the expansion of CWG scope to cover the intent of the request, I believe it should be reflected in the charter. This will not require more process than we are already going through right now. That said since Co-Chairs have already sent out the message in this manner(which is cool), the CWG should reference this document (with formal approval of Chartering organisations in the charter). It's a minor process/documentation that we should not ignore and let go on. Regards 1. In the event it is decided that the charter needs to be modified to address the omission or unreasonable impact, the co-chairs may propose to modify the charter. A modification shall only be effective after adoption of the adjusted charter by the chartering organizations in accordance with their own rules and procedures. Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 16 Nov 2015 21:06, "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> wrote: Seun, I believe that this lightweight process is instead of updating the charter, which would require new drafting and then formal action on behalf of all of the chartering bodies to approve the revision. If the chartering bodies all agree to this method, we have effectively changed the mandate of the CWG without having to go through the formalities - quicker and easier. These messages (asking for and getting permission from the chartering bodies) will form part of the overall documentation for the CWG and should be sufficient. Alan At 16/11/2015 11:55 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: Hello, I believe it's in order and I recommend that while ALAC supports this, we should recommend that the CWG charter be updated accordingly or at least the communiqué be formerly referenced in the charter. Regards Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 16 Nov 2015 16:47, "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> > wrote: Please see following message. I believe this makes sense. If anyone has concerns with this, please let us know. Based on any negative comments, I will initiate a Consensus Call or formal vote next Monday, 23 November. The Consensus Call or vote will be for ALAC Members only, but of course, the discussion is open to anyone on this list. Alan To: ALAC, CCNSO, GAC, GNSO, SSAC Cc: CWG-Stewardship, ICG, CRISP, IANAPLAN, CCWG-Accountability, ICANN Implementation & ICANN Policy Staff. Dear Chartering Organizations of the CWG IANA Stewardship, Subject: CWG-Stewardship role in implementation At ICANN54 in Dublin, the IANA Stewardship Coordination Group (ICG) confirmed designation of the operational communities to be responsible for direct implementation oversight of their proposals. The CWG-Stewardship also met during the course of ICANN54 and discussed this role and we continued this discussion in a subsequent meeting on Thursday 5 November 2015. An oversight role is not specifically detailed in our Charter, but it is the CWG-Stewardship’s view that our role in implementation is to ensure that the implementation is consistent with the CWG-Stewardship Final Proposal and furthermore, to provide input on the implementation work when required by staff working on the implementation or, if and when necessary, to bring the implementation work back in line with the intent of the Final Proposal. In our view, the most logical option is to have the CWG-Stewardship working group continue in its current form and with the responsibility to monitor the implementation and provide input where needed. Of course, this responsibility would include regular updates to the Chartering Organizations via the appointed members as well as consultations with the Chartering Organizations should issues be identified that are deemed without this specific remit. We note here for your information, that while the CWG-Stewardship Final Proposal was submitted in June 2015, the CWG-Stewardship has remained active and therefore available when needed. This has included being available to answer questions from the ICG, or to monitor the CCWG-Accountability dependencies and to coordinate with the other operational communities on shared issues such as IANA intellectual property rights. As the CWG-Stewardship Charter does not specifically address implementation, we would like to ensure that the CWG-Stewardship’s proposed approach in relation to implementation is not inconsistent with the intent of the Chartering Organizations concerning the scope and role of the CWG-Stewardship. We therefore propose to proceed to oversee the implementation work as described above unless there are objections from one or more Chartering Organizations. We would like to emphasize that the CWG-Stewardship does not intend to change its working methods in light of this ongoing role. The group will remain open to anyone who wishes to join, and we will welcome informed individuals with relevant implementation and operational experience to join the CWG-Stewardship in this next phase. Thank you for your consideration of this matter and for your ongoing support of our work. Please let us know of any concerns by no later than 30 November 2015. Jonathan Robinson & Lise Fuhr CWG-Stewardship co-Chairs _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org<http://www.atlarge.icann.org/> ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)<https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+%28ALAC%29> _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org<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<mailto: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<mailto: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...)
My understanding is the same. The chapter do not want to create any modification that would demand formal process and consequent delay. But if there is any doubt about I believe we can ask some vc to confirm our understanding here Vanda Scartezini Sent from my iPhone Sorry for typos On 16 de nov de 2015, at 22:11, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com<mailto:ocl@gih.com>> wrote: Dear Seun, my understanding is that no part of the email from the co-Chairs of the CWG Stewardship contains a proposal to "change the charter". If such a suggestion was made, there would need to be a detailed list of the changes to be made in the charter, with the previous text given and the replacement text (or added text) crafted and clearly shared. The amendments would then need to be examined by all SOs and ACs and voted on. My understanding is that the co-Chairs wanted to avoid all of this and just provide notice to SOs/ACs about an extension to the initially defined mission. No vote needed if there is no objection from any Chartering Organisation. Kindest regards, Olivier On 16/11/2015 19:14, Seun Ojedeji wrote: Hello Alan, What we are basically doing by this request is modifying the charter, that is exactly the process that is happening right now[1] so I don't really think there will be any other issue/challenge with referencing the update in the charter. It is the charter that determines the scope of work of the CWG and when there is an expansion (which is agreed to by the Chartering organisation) the charter should reflect such. While I support the expansion of CWG scope to cover the intent of the request, I believe it should be reflected in the charter. This will not require more process than we are already going through right now. That said since Co-Chairs have already sent out the message in this manner(which is cool), the CWG should reference this document (with formal approval of Chartering organisations in the charter). It's a minor process/documentation that we should not ignore and let go on. Regards 1. In the event it is decided that the charter needs to be modified to address the omission or unreasonable impact, the co-chairs may propose to modify the charter. A modification shall only be effective after adoption of the adjusted charter by the chartering organizations in accordance with their own rules and procedures. Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 16 Nov 2015 21:06, "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> wrote: Seun, I believe that this lightweight process is instead of updating the charter, which would require new drafting and then formal action on behalf of all of the chartering bodies to approve the revision. If the chartering bodies all agree to this method, we have effectively changed the mandate of the CWG without having to go through the formalities - quicker and easier. These messages (asking for and getting permission from the chartering bodies) will form part of the overall documentation for the CWG and should be sufficient. Alan At 16/11/2015 11:55 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: Hello, I believe it's in order and I recommend that while ALAC supports this, we should recommend that the CWG charter be updated accordingly or at least the communiqué be formerly referenced in the charter. Regards Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 16 Nov 2015 16:47, "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> > wrote: Please see following message. I believe this makes sense. If anyone has concerns with this, please let us know. Based on any negative comments, I will initiate a Consensus Call or formal vote next Monday, 23 November. The Consensus Call or vote will be for ALAC Members only, but of course, the discussion is open to anyone on this list. Alan To: ALAC, CCNSO, GAC, GNSO, SSAC Cc: CWG-Stewardship, ICG, CRISP, IANAPLAN, CCWG-Accountability, ICANN Implementation & ICANN Policy Staff. Dear Chartering Organizations of the CWG IANA Stewardship, Subject: CWG-Stewardship role in implementation At ICANN54 in Dublin, the IANA Stewardship Coordination Group (ICG) confirmed designation of the operational communities to be responsible for direct implementation oversight of their proposals. The CWG-Stewardship also met during the course of ICANN54 and discussed this role and we continued this discussion in a subsequent meeting on Thursday 5 November 2015. An oversight role is not specifically detailed in our Charter, but it is the CWG-StewardshipâEUR(tm)s view that our role in implementation is to ensure that the implementation is consistent with the CWG-Stewardship Final Proposal and furthermore, to provide input on the implementation work when required by staff working on the implementation or, if and when necessary, to bring the implementation work back in line with the intent of the Final Proposal. In our view, the most logical option is to have the CWG-Stewardship working group continue in its current form and with the responsibility to monitor the implementation and provide input where needed. Of course, this responsibility would include regular updates to the Chartering Organizations via the appointed members as well as consultations with the Chartering Organizations should issues be identified that are deemed without this specific remit. We note here for your information, that while the CWG-Stewardship Final Proposal was submitted in June 2015, the CWG-Stewardship has remained active and therefore available when needed. This has included being available to answer questions from the ICG, or to monitor the CCWG-Accountability dependencies and to coordinate with the other operational communities on shared issues such as IANA intellectual property rights. As the CWG-Stewardship Charter does not specifically address implementation, we would like to ensure that the CWG-StewardshipâEUR(tm)s proposed approach in relation to implementation is not inconsistent with the intent of the Chartering Organizations concerning the scope and role of the CWG-Stewardship. We therefore propose to proceed to oversee the implementation work as described above unless there are objections from one or more Chartering Organizations. We would like to emphasize that the CWG-Stewardship does not intend to change its working methods in light of this ongoing role. The group will remain open to anyone who wishes to join, and we will welcome informed individuals with relevant implementation and operational experience to join the CWG-Stewardship in this next phase. Thank you for your consideration of this matter and for your ongoing support of our work. Please let us know of any concerns by no later than 30 November 2015. Jonathan Robinson & Lise Fuhr CWG-Stewardship co-Chairs _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto: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)<https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+%28ALAC%29> _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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...)
Hello Olivier/all, Maybe this is not getting across correctly, let me try again. What the Co-Chairs has requested the Chartering organisations to do is to approve the expansion of the CWG scope of work. That scope is CWG is defined in the charter. 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. 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. I hope that provides some clarification on the intent of my mail. I won't be raising this on the CWG list as I sense it may be misunderstood and unnecessarily prolong the process which is not what I have in mind. Regards Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 17 Nov 2015 01:10, "Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond" <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
Dear Seun,
my understanding is that no part of the email from the co-Chairs of the CWG Stewardship contains a proposal to "change the charter". If such a suggestion was made, there would need to be a detailed list of the changes to be made in the charter, with the previous text given and the replacement text (or added text) crafted and clearly shared. The amendments would then need to be examined by all SOs and ACs and voted on.
My understanding is that the co-Chairs wanted to avoid all of this and just provide notice to SOs/ACs about an extension to the initially defined mission. No vote needed if there is no objection from any Chartering Organisation.
Kindest regards,
Olivier
On 16/11/2015 19:14, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
Hello Alan,
What we are basically doing by this request is modifying the charter, that is exactly the process that is happening right now[1] so I don't really think there will be any other issue/challenge with referencing the update in the charter. It is the charter that determines the scope of work of the CWG and when there is an expansion (which is agreed to by the Chartering organisation) the charter should reflect such.
While I support the expansion of CWG scope to cover the intent of the request, I believe it should be reflected in the charter. This will not require more process than we are already going through right now.
That said since Co-Chairs have already sent out the message in this manner(which is cool), the CWG should reference this document (with formal approval of Chartering organisations in the charter). It's a minor process/documentation that we should not ignore and let go on.
Regards 1. In the event it is decided that the charter needs to be modified to address the omission or unreasonable impact, the co-chairs may propose to modify the charter. A modification shall only be effective after adoption of the adjusted charter by the chartering organizations in accordance with their own rules and procedures.
Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 16 Nov 2015 21:06, "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
Seun, I believe that this lightweight process is instead of updating the charter, which would require new drafting and then formal action on behalf of all of the chartering bodies to approve the revision. If the chartering bodies all agree to this method, we have effectively changed the mandate of the CWG without having to go through the formalities - quicker and easier.
These messages (asking for and getting permission from the chartering bodies) will form part of the overall documentation for the CWG and should be sufficient.
Alan
At 16/11/2015 11:55 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
Hello,
I believe it's in order and I recommend that while ALAC supports this, we should recommend that the CWG charter be updated accordingly or at least the communiqué be formerly referenced in the charter.
Regards Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 16 Nov 2015 16:47, "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca > wrote: Please see following message.
I believe this makes sense. If anyone has concerns with this, please let us know. Based on any negative comments, I will initiate a Consensus Call or formal vote next Monday, 23 November. The Consensus Call or vote will be for ALAC Members only, but of course, the discussion is open to anyone on this list.
Alan
To: ALAC, CCNSO, GAC, GNSO, SSAC Cc: CWG-Stewardship, ICG, CRISP, IANAPLAN, CCWG-Accountability, ICANN Implementation & ICANN Policy Staff.
Dear Chartering Organizations of the CWG IANA Stewardship,
Subject: CWG-Stewardship role in implementation
At ICANN54 in Dublin, the IANA Stewardship Coordination Group (ICG) confirmed designation of the operational communities to be responsible for direct implementation oversight of their proposals.
The CWG-Stewardship also met during the course of ICANN54 and discussed this role and we continued this discussion in a subsequent meeting on Thursday 5 November 2015. An oversight role is not specifically detailed in our Charter, but it is the CWG-Stewardship’s view that our role in implementation is to ensure that the implementation is consistent with the CWG-Stewardship Final Proposal and furthermore, to provide input on the implementation work when required by staff working on the implementation or, if and when necessary, to bring the implementation work back in line with the intent of the Final Proposal.
In our view, the most logical option is to have the CWG-Stewardship working group continue in its current form and with the responsibility to monitor the implementation and provide input where needed. Of course, this responsibility would include regular updates to the Chartering Organizations via the appointed members as well as consultations with the Chartering Organizations should issues be identified that are deemed without this specific remit.
We note here for your information, that while the CWG-Stewardship Final Proposal was submitted in June 2015, the CWG-Stewardship has remained active and therefore available when needed. This has included being available to answer questions from the ICG, or to monitor the CCWG-Accountability dependencies and to coordinate with the other operational communities on shared issues such as IANA intellectual property rights.
As the CWG-Stewardship Charter does not specifically address implementation, we would like to ensure that the CWG-Stewardship’s proposed approach in relation to implementation is not inconsistent with the intent of the Chartering Organizations concerning the scope and role of the CWG-Stewardship. We therefore propose to proceed to oversee the implementation work as described above unless there are objections from one or more Chartering Organizations.
We would like to emphasize that the CWG-Stewardship does not intend to change its working methods in light of this ongoing role. The group will remain open to anyone who wishes to join, and we will welcome informed individuals with relevant implementation and operational experience to join the CWG-Stewardship in this next phase.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter and for your ongoing support of our work. Please let us know of any concerns by no later than 30 November 2015.
Jonathan Robinson & Lise Fuhr CWG-Stewardship co-Chairs
_______________________________________________ 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...) <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+%28A...>
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing listALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.orghttps://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...)
I support the expansion and the co-chairs notes. -ed On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 12:38 AM Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello Olivier/all,
Maybe this is not getting across correctly, let me try again. What the Co-Chairs has requested the Chartering organisations to do is to approve the expansion of the CWG scope of work. That scope is CWG is defined in the charter.
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.
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.
I hope that provides some clarification on the intent of my mail. I won't be raising this on the CWG list as I sense it may be misunderstood and unnecessarily prolong the process which is not what I have in mind.
Regards Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 17 Nov 2015 01:10, "Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond" <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
Dear Seun,
my understanding is that no part of the email from the co-Chairs of the CWG Stewardship contains a proposal to "change the charter". If such a suggestion was made, there would need to be a detailed list of the changes to be made in the charter, with the previous text given and the replacement text (or added text) crafted and clearly shared. The amendments would then need to be examined by all SOs and ACs and voted on.
My understanding is that the co-Chairs wanted to avoid all of this and just provide notice to SOs/ACs about an extension to the initially defined mission. No vote needed if there is no objection from any Chartering Organisation.
Kindest regards,
Olivier
On 16/11/2015 19:14, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
Hello Alan,
What we are basically doing by this request is modifying the charter, that is exactly the process that is happening right now[1] so I don't really think there will be any other issue/challenge with referencing the update in the charter. It is the charter that determines the scope of work of the CWG and when there is an expansion (which is agreed to by the Chartering organisation) the charter should reflect such.
While I support the expansion of CWG scope to cover the intent of the request, I believe it should be reflected in the charter. This will not require more process than we are already going through right now.
That said since Co-Chairs have already sent out the message in this manner(which is cool), the CWG should reference this document (with formal approval of Chartering organisations in the charter). It's a minor process/documentation that we should not ignore and let go on.
Regards 1. In the event it is decided that the charter needs to be modified to address the omission or unreasonable impact, the co-chairs may propose to modify the charter. A modification shall only be effective after adoption of the adjusted charter by the chartering organizations in accordance with their own rules and procedures.
Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 16 Nov 2015 21:06, "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
Seun, I believe that this lightweight process is instead of updating the charter, which would require new drafting and then formal action on behalf of all of the chartering bodies to approve the revision. If the chartering bodies all agree to this method, we have effectively changed the mandate of the CWG without having to go through the formalities - quicker and easier.
These messages (asking for and getting permission from the chartering bodies) will form part of the overall documentation for the CWG and should be sufficient.
Alan
At 16/11/2015 11:55 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
Hello,
I believe it's in order and I recommend that while ALAC supports this, we should recommend that the CWG charter be updated accordingly or at least the communiqué be formerly referenced in the charter.
Regards Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 16 Nov 2015 16:47, "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca > wrote: Please see following message.
I believe this makes sense. If anyone has concerns with this, please let us know. Based on any negative comments, I will initiate a Consensus Call or formal vote next Monday, 23 November. The Consensus Call or vote will be for ALAC Members only, but of course, the discussion is open to anyone on this list.
Alan
To: ALAC, CCNSO, GAC, GNSO, SSAC Cc: CWG-Stewardship, ICG, CRISP, IANAPLAN, CCWG-Accountability, ICANN Implementation & ICANN Policy Staff.
Dear Chartering Organizations of the CWG IANA Stewardship,
Subject: CWG-Stewardship role in implementation
At ICANN54 in Dublin, the IANA Stewardship Coordination Group (ICG) confirmed designation of the operational communities to be responsible for direct implementation oversight of their proposals.
The CWG-Stewardship also met during the course of ICANN54 and discussed this role and we continued this discussion in a subsequent meeting on Thursday 5 November 2015. An oversight role is not specifically detailed in our Charter, but it is the CWG-Stewardship’s view that our role in implementation is to ensure that the implementation is consistent with the CWG-Stewardship Final Proposal and furthermore, to provide input on the implementation work when required by staff working on the implementation or, if and when necessary, to bring the implementation work back in line with the intent of the Final Proposal.
In our view, the most logical option is to have the CWG-Stewardship working group continue in its current form and with the responsibility to monitor the implementation and provide input where needed. Of course, this responsibility would include regular updates to the Chartering Organizations via the appointed members as well as consultations with the Chartering Organizations should issues be identified that are deemed without this specific remit.
We note here for your information, that while the CWG-Stewardship Final Proposal was submitted in June 2015, the CWG-Stewardship has remained active and therefore available when needed. This has included being available to answer questions from the ICG, or to monitor the CCWG-Accountability dependencies and to coordinate with the other operational communities on shared issues such as IANA intellectual property rights.
As the CWG-Stewardship Charter does not specifically address implementation, we would like to ensure that the CWG-Stewardship’s proposed approach in relation to implementation is not inconsistent with the intent of the Chartering Organizations concerning the scope and role of the CWG-Stewardship. We therefore propose to proceed to oversee the implementation work as described above unless there are objections from one or more Chartering Organizations.
We would like to emphasize that the CWG-Stewardship does not intend to change its working methods in light of this ongoing role. The group will remain open to anyone who wishes to join, and we will welcome informed individuals with relevant implementation and operational experience to join the CWG-Stewardship in this next phase.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter and for your ongoing support of our work. Please let us know of any concerns by no later than 30 November 2015.
Jonathan Robinson & Lise Fuhr CWG-Stewardship co-Chairs
_______________________________________________ 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...) <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+%28A...>
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing listALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.orghttps://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...)
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
participants (6)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Eduardo Diaz -
León Felipe Sánchez Ambía -
Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond -
Seun Ojedeji -
Vanda Scartezini