Hello Gabi and all,

FWIW the "minimum of 2/maximum of 5” model for membership in a Cross Community Working Group (CWG) was also applied to the ongoing CWG that’s 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>:
>
>>
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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>

>>
>>
>