I've made some inquiries about this. Apparently the problem is more one of perception. The CWG made the rather stupid mistake of calling participants on the email discussion list "observers" rather than "participants." This was an unfortunate choice of words, given that in the CWG consensus calls are supposed to be based on the email list participants' views. Only when there is no consensus things will go to the more restricted "working group" members for a vote. --MM
-----Original Message----- From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg- bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller Sent: Monday, September 29, 2014 9:25 AM To: internal-cg@icann.org Subject: [Internal-cg] worth noting
A complaint has been filed against the names community's working group. http://forum.icann.org/lists/icg-forum/msg00011.html
Alissa made some similar comments on the IETF ianaplan list. Although I have publicly explained why they set it up that way, frankly I find the CWG Structure hard to defend. I wonder whether others more closely involved with the IANA CWG chartering process could explain whether it is possible to make some amendments. The group is slow enough to form as it is, I tremble at the thought of amendments that would lead to further delays, but it might actually save time if it prevents challenges to its legitimacy further down the road.
Milton L. Mueller Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/mueller/Home.html
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg