So what are the next steps? -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.blacknight.press/ http://www.technology.ie/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Social: http://mneylon.social ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 -----Original Message----- From: cc-humanrights-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cc-humanrights-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2015 2:29 AM To: Amr Elsadr Cc: cc-humanrights@icann.org Subject: Re: [cc-humanrights] Considerations on next steps Dear Amr, sorry if my message sounded professorial in tone - it was just to illustrate the trials and time wasted on process when the ALAC & NCSG did something which appeared to be nimble to start with - ICANN catches up with you! :-) We're in violent agreement. Kind regards, Olivier On 18/03/2015 09:31, Amr Elsadr wrote:
Hi,
Coming from a part of the world where due process (along with human rights) is pretty much an alien notion, I have an affinity for process wherever I can find it. :) But I appreciate the frustration in processes hampering effectiveness and efficiency.
I agree that we don't need to follow in the footsteps of the CCWG-IG. That's why I also believe a working party is a constructive first step. Only meant to use it as an example for a CCWG that was established with only one of the GNSO's stakeholder groups along with another AC. I don't recall it ever being referred to as a joint working group rather than a CCWG, but if you say so, I will defer to your account of it.
Thanks.
Amr
On Mar 18, 2015, at 2:29 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
Dear Amr:
On 17/03/2015 20:42, Amr Elsadr wrote:
However, I would like to note something at this time. Contrary to what Jean-Jaques said, a CCWG does not necessarily need to be chartered by the GNSO as a whole. Although that would be desirable, a single Stakeholder Group (or more than one) within the GNSO could adopt a charter if any other SO or AC is willing to participate as a chartering organization. The CCWG-IG is an example of a CCWG that came into existence before the GNSO adopted a charter. It started off by being an initiative by the NCSG and ALAC. This was partly because the charter of the CCWG was adopted many months after the CCWG-IG actually began its work. I wouldn't take the CCWG on Internet Governance as an example. We initially started as a joint working group between the ALAC and the NCSG. This was picked up by David Olive and announced. We hoped others would joint and they did indeed, but rather fast and we ended up working without a charter, which was not ideal - especially with people trying to discredit the legitimacy of the group itself. It took several months to draft a charter and have it ratified by most (but not all) of the SOs and ACs and over a year later we're still grappling with the make-up of the CCWG's membership.
That's the reason why I recommended we do not go down the CCWG route and that we set-up some kind of Working Party. Ultimately, I know, it's all "process" and I wish we didn't have so much red tape around things. :-)
Kindest regards,
Olivier
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html _______________________________________________ cc-humanrights mailing list cc-humanrights@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-humanrights