Hello Gabi and all, FWIW the "minimum of 2/maximum of 5² model for membership in a Cross Community Working Group (CWG) was also applied to the ongoing CWG that¹s developing a Framework of Operating Principles for Future CWGs, co-chaired by Becky Burr (ccNSO) and John Berard (GNSO). Cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org From: Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> Date: Thursday, November 6, 2014 at 8:43 PM Cc: GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org>, "gnso-secs@icann.org" <gnso-secs@icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] motion re charter for the Accountability CWG
Hi,
This is the same membership basis that was used for the CWG-Stewardship, a charter the council already approved. In fact ths cahrter was patterned off of that with the missions and goals being different, but the modalities being similar. I do not recall any discussion during the drafting about a larger representation.
Only the CSG-Internet had the larger membership count, it was the exception given if long operation as an ad-hoc group without a charter.
Incidentally, the team from the GNSO on this drafting team consisted of:
GNSO:
Avri Doria
Keith Drazek
David Fares
Thomas Rickert (co-chair)
I hope that helps clarify.
avri
On 06-Nov-14 17:41, Gabriela Szlak wrote:
Dear all,
Thanks so much for the hard work on this.
Regarding the charter, I would like to ask a clarifying question on the issue of membership of the CCWG.
The charter says:
*"Each of the chartering organizations shall appoint a minimum of 2 and a maximum of 5 members to the working group in accordance with their own rules and procedures"*
¿Could we clarify before the next council call what this means?
I recall a long discussion in LA on membership regarding the Charter for the CCWG on IG so I would like to be sure we all understand the language, as I am not sure I do, and Susan and I need to report to BC members and ask for guidance on this topic. There is a huge amount of work to be done on this CCWG and we believe that diversity of expertise and viewpoints in membership is crucial to achieve to proposed goals.
Thanks a lot, Gabi
*Gabriela Szlak *
*Skype:* gabrielaszlak
*Twitter: @*GabiSzlak
La información contenida en este e-mail es confidencial. The information in this e-mail is confidential.
2014-11-03 19:16 GMT-03:00 Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> <mailto:avri@acm.org> :
Hi,
I second the motion.
As a member of the DT, I also applaud the effort and cooperative spirit of the DT group. We are getting better at starting up these CWG efforts, and I admit that the time we did it in looks like it may be far shorter than my predictions.
avri
On 04-Nov-14 05:52, Thomas Rickert wrote:
>> All, >> please find attached for your consideration a motion considering the adoption of >> the charter for the Enhancing Accountability CWG as well as the charter. >> >> Let me take the opportunity to applaud DT members, ICANN staff and my co-chair >> Mathieu Weill on having produced the attached charter in a very short time span >> in a most collaborative fashion. >> >> Thanks, >> Thomas >> >> >> >> >>