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

[Amr Elsadr]

Hi Bill,

We can?t have a consensus without first having a discussion. I was hoping to encourage a discussion, which seems to be going on. ;-)

Thanks.

Amr

> On Mar 3, 2016, at 10:12 AM, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi
> 
>> On Mar 2, 2016, at 20:35, Marilia Maciel <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> 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