Council Item for Disussion

[Marilia Maciel]

My concern is with the balance of SGs inputs into the discussion. This a
complex issue in which some decisions will be made. I tend to think that an
equal number of participants would be important to achieve a fair result.
Otherwise we may confront ourselves with a army of legal people dedicated
full time to this. What do others think about a group with limited
membership and parity of members?
Marilia

On Sat, Jun 25, 2016 at 2:53 PM, Matthew Shears <mshears at cdt.org> wrote:

> + 1 Yes, open.  The CCWG bylaws work has been a useful training ground.
>
> On 6/24/2016 9:41 AM, James Gannon wrote:
>
> Yes I’d support this, plenty of us who have been working on CWG and CCWG
> can move quickly on this working with councillors in a bottom up manner.
>
> -J
>
> From: NCSG-Discuss < <NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>
> NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU> on behalf of farzaneh badii <
> farzaneh.badii at GMAIL.COM>
> Reply-To: farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at GMAIL.COM>
> Date: Friday 24 June 2016 at 07:24
> To: " <NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU" <
> NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>
> Subject: Re: Council Item for Disussion
>
> or perhaps call for an open group so that anyone can join?
>
>
>
> On 24 June 2016 at 08:01, Dorothy K. Gordon <
> director-general at aiti-kace.com.gh> wrote:
>
>> In theory your approach would be ideal but given the deadlines would it
>> be effectively possible? Perhaps Council + a few others?
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "James Gannon" <james at CYBERINVASION.NET>
>> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>> Sent: Friday, June 24, 2016 6:12:30 AM
>> Subject: Council Item for Disussion
>>
>>
>> Hi All,
>> As we know there are many changes coming for the role of the GNSO with
>> our new accountability powers, I want to call out the following item on the
>> council agenda for Helsinki
>>
>>     * Item 5: COUNCIL VOTE - Approval to Form a Drafting Team to Develop
>> an Implementation Plan for New and Additional GNSO Powers and Obligations
>> under the Revised ICANN Bylaws (15 minutes)
>>
>> I have to say that I am concerned about this, this is a critical item for
>> the GNSO and will set its strategic view and position for the next 5-7
>> years most likely, I don’t fee very comfortable with this being done in a
>> potentially top down manner by council, I feel that this should be
>> developed in a bottom up manner by the SGs and C’s first.
>>
>>
>> I would be interested in others thoughts so that we can guide the PC on a
>> position on this
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> James
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Farzaneh
>
>
> --
>
> Matthew Shears | Director, Global Internet Policy & Human Rights Project
> Center for Democracy & Technology | cdt.org
> E: mshears at cdt.org | T: +44.771.247.2987
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20160626/8f889622/attachment.htm>