Dear Mary, Following up on Gabi's question below, unfortunately the process of membership isn't clear to me, either. For example, are all Members now appointed to the CWG on Framework of Operating Principles for Future CWGs? I understood that members had not all been appointed, and if that's correct, what is the process for appointing new members? Council motion? Other? Apologies for perhaps asking a dumb question while I am new to GNSO procedures. Many thanks and best wishes, Heather From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Saturday, 8 November 2014 3:08 AM Cc: GNSO Council List Subject: Re: [council] motion re charter for the Accountability CWG 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<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> From: Avri Doria <avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>> Date: Thursday, November 6, 2014 at 8:43 PM Cc: GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>>, "gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>" <gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto: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 <mailto:avri@acm.org> <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