Ron,

Most often referred to as cross-community working groups, they were used with regard to both JIG and JAS (I love saying that!) but they are not codified in bylaws.

This has led to them being defined "in the eye of the beholder."

The Council is most concerned about the way the Board has gone to them directly for comment and how the work product of the CWG has gone directly to the Board, without GNSO Council review. The ALAC has forwarded the report, the result of each organization creating different charters for the same CWG.

It is clear that CWG could see their practice expanded as issues confronting ICANN affect a broader set of audiences. It would be good to get the rules down on paper.

I think that is the motivation.

Cheers,

Berard

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [bc-gnso] GNSO Council topics with Board
From: "Ron Andruff" <randruff@rnapartners.com>
Date: Mon, June 13, 2011 8:01 am
To: "'bc - GNSO list'" <bc-gnso@icann.org>

Jon,

Zahid,

Could either of you please advise what the following discussion point with the Board is about?

“Community Working Groups (CWGs) is a discussion we need to continue to have with the Board, if only to update them on the recent discussions we've had amongst ourselves.”

I didn’t want to burden the call today, but am interested to know what CWGs are.

Thanks for any insight you can provide.

RA

Ronald N. Andruff

RNA Partners, Inc.