hi all, i think we need to defend the GNSO PDP, and working-groups, as a brand. people are calling a lot of projects “working groups” when they are not. which dilutes the value of the name. speaking as one who puts a fair amount of energy into working groups it also demotivates me and others who do that. why pay all that attention to quality and rigor when others get all the benefit of the credibility of the name and get Business Class funded travel to boot? i’ve said this before, in a different context… i’m trainable. mikey On Mar 12, 2014, at 5:32 AM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
This is an example of what I mean about disclaimer in the body of a report being somewhat irrelevant.
Though the report did come out decently, there is still the problem of an un-chartered adhoc group speaking in the name of the GNSO and the rest of ICANN with a statement that received little or no community review.
Lately we have been lucky with things that are set up incorrectly producing a decent product (The ICANN Review teams and this). I believe, however, that each time this happens, it weakens the community's hold on its processes.
avri
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: [ccwg-internet-governance] CCWG contribution in ICANN's homepage banner Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 10:00:04 -0700 From: Alexandra Dans <> To: ccwg-internet-governance@icann.org <ccwg-internet-governance@icann.org>
Dear all,
The CCWG contribution is being shared from the first banner of ICANN’s homepage.
See image below <image004.png>
PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)