Council Item for Disussion

[Milan, Stefania]

I also concur with Marilia's view and Ed's specification of how members should be chosen.
Stefania

________________________________________
Da: NCSG-Discuss <NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU> per conto di Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at GMAIL.COM>
Inviato: domenica 26 giugno 2016 13.52.59
A: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
Oggetto: Re: Council Item for Disussion

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<mailto: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 <<mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU<mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>> on behalf of farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at GMAIL.COM<mailto:farzaneh.badii at GMAIL.COM>>
Reply-To: farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at GMAIL.COM<mailto:farzaneh.badii at GMAIL.COM>>
Date: Friday 24 June 2016 at 07:24
To: "<mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU<mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>" <NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:james at CYBERINVASION.NET>>
To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU<mailto: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<http://cdt.org>
E: mshears at cdt.org<mailto:mshears at cdt.org> | T: +44.771.247.2987<tel:%2B44.771.247.2987>




The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, forwarding, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited without the express permission of the sender. If you received this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.