[PC-NCSG] Principles for CCWGs => CCW-IG

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

Interesting distinction.
Do I understand:
A WG is of chartered SOAC+
A WP is of individuals from various SOAC+

avri

On 03-Mar-16 03:12, William Drake wrote:
> Hi
>
>> On Mar 2, 2016, at 20:35, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com
>> <mailto:mariliamaciel at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> On the practical aspect of Bill's message, I do not see clearly why a
>> CCWG nature is being an obstacle. Looking back, I do agree it should
>> have ben created as a CCWP, but now that it is a CCWG should take
>> active steps to change this? In what that would benefit the CCWG?
>> Maybe Bill has more insights, I have followed it less closely.
>
> One of the reasons we?ve been unable to get consensus to do anything
> is that some participants have consistently said my SOACSGC which is a
> charted member would never agree to xyz so we can?t even discuss it.
>  Which allows us to skip the difficult process of securing SOACSGC
> endorsements of statements/position papers etc. but also means we are
> inert. A WP charter can mitigate the principles/agents thing and
> provide more flexibility for coalitions of the willing.
>
>> On Mar 2, 2016, at 20:02, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at EGYPTIG.ORG
>> <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>> wrote:
>>
>> I don?t believe the CCWP-HR has shown progress and success because
>> it?s a CCWP. It?s more likely because they have been focused on
>> specific objectives since it was established, and has worked hard to
>> achieve them.
>
> I wouldn?t contend that it?s shown progress simply or solely because
> it?s a CCWP, but think not having the structural constraints certainly
> has not hurt, either.
>
> I don?t think there?s a compelling rationale to just eliminate the
> thing, or that there could be consensus to do so. It?s not just that
> institutional stickiness and sunk costs make it hard to wind up
> something, especially when the substantive issue that?s supposed to be
> the focus remains live.  There?s enough people who do genuinely
> believe that it's useful to have a place within ICANN where the
> community can consider broader IG issues that configure ICANN?s
> environment and interact with staff on how they manage those linkages.
>  But it?d be nice if the community itself was able to say or do
> anything about those linkages, and currently we cannot.
>
> In any event it seems we don?t have a consensus to encourage change so
> I won?t push it and we?ll see how things evolve.
>
> Thanks
>
> Bill
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus