[NCSG-PC] CCWG-IG motion amendments

[Rafik Dammak]

Hi Stephanie,

if you recall in Hyderabad, Council asked the working group to align itself
with the uniform framework for CCWG. the working group did a review of its
charter and amended following the framework model (using a charter
template). the amended charter was submitted in Copenhagen meeting.

several councilors are still not satisfied with that and the request now
with this motion is to suggest a new vehicle which is not CCWG but
responding to other requirements and improving accountability and reporting
mechanisms, also about submitting positions on behalf of the community and
how to come back to charter organizations.

The working group had a discussion of the matter and we think we can found
out a new structure having a cross-community structure but not necessarily
a CCWG. There is no model yet and the working group will be tasked to make
a proposal. GNSO created previously several structures such as standing
committee etc (a long list), so the CCWG-IG will end up a new one to the
GNSO structures fauna. basically, it will be like a CCWG, behaving as CCWG
but not having the name of CCWG...

to be more candid and more direct,  several groups within GNSO are
concerned that CCWG becomes more and more the model for any work including
PDP. you can see similar concerns about the subpro WG working track 5
on geonames.

Best,

Rafik

ps I changed the permissions in the google doc, you should be able to
comment there

2017-08-10 10:34 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin <
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>:

> There is a typo in the thrid para, amtrying to get edit access to fix a
> few things.  More important question is exactly what model did we have in
> mind, if not a CCWG???
>
> cheers Steph
>
> On 2017-08-09 20:31, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> are you ok with the proposed amendments https://docs.google.com/
> document/d/1LQWVaEgppF38Gvnm9SpvftHpdhI1BOGdRdl_YyBe3oA/edit? we should
> submit them by the deadline Monday 14th August to be taken into account.
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
> 2017-07-14 8:32 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> as you know, we asked for the CCWG-IG motion to be deferred so we can
>> continue working on our amendments. that was supported by other groups like
>> IPC due to the short time we had since Johannesburg meeting.
>>
>> Marilia, Farzaneh and I worked on making some amendments to the motion as
>> follow-up of our NCSG Policy call this week https://docs.google.com/d
>> ocument/d/1LQWVaEgppF38Gvnm9SpvftHpdhI1BOGdRdl_YyBe3oA/edit
>>
>> we are sharing this so we can discuss them. we will also share them with
>> the wider NCSG list.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Rafik
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170810/caad34e5/attachment.htm>