Thanks guys for initiating the discussion. I encourage others to chime in. This topic of community working groups is one that is obviously generating some uncertainty and, dare I say it, even some level of discomfort. It would therefore be helpful to further the discussion on the Council list and perhaps, plan a discussion item on this during one of our forthcoming Council teleconferences. Thanks. Stéphane Le 12 janv. 2011 à 14:08, Tim Ruiz a écrit :
Correct. There is a serious danger with these currently undefined CWGs, that their work products be mistaken as some sort of consensus and/or end run around the established policy processes.
Tim
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [council] FW: Rec6 CWG Response to the Board Request From: "Neuman, Jeff" Date: Tue, January 11, 2011 4:12 pm To: "'bruce.tonkin@melbourneit.com.au'" , "'council@gnso.icann.org'"
I think the point is that the Board should have directed the clarification questions to the gnso and alac communities to get the responses and not a working group of those communities. Logic would dictate that the gnso and alac would delegate the work to the working group (with oversight from the respective councils). This would ensure that when the board gets something back, it would be supported by the community and not just individuals that may not even be able to represent their own companies, much less their constituencies or stake-holder groups.
Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq. Vice President, Law & Policy NeuStar, Inc. Jeff.Neuman@neustar.biz
----- Original Message ----- From: Bruce Tonkin [mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au] Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2011 05:01 PM To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] FW: Rec6 CWG Response to the Board Request
Hello Jeff,
I am a little puzzled as to why there was direct communication from the working group to the board and vice versa that did not involve the community
There was a bit of both at Cartagena actually. There was a public session which I think I chaired, and also a chance given to the working group members to explain their positions to a few Board members (certainly not a quorum of Board members). The Board asked as a follow up to get a formal response following Cartagena on any revised position.
Any feedback from the Council would be most welcome - especially as input into the GAC/ICANN Board meeting in late Feb 2011.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin