[NCUC-DISCUSS] CS @ CWG on IG

Thu Dec 12 18:23:13 CET 2013

+1

On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 4:49 PM, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch> wrote:

> Hi
>
> Actually Rudi, there may be a better way.  The initial meeting in BA was
> between NCSG / At Large, so we said three from each.   But that was just to
> get the process started—for the CWG itself, I don’t see any reason why we
> shouldn’t have representation from the constituency level, rather than the
> SG.   After all, on the CSG side, the BC, IPC, and ISPC are each
> designating four reps; why should we get four when they have twelve?  Eight
> and twelve would be a bit less asymmetric.  Indeed, from a House parity
> standpoint, one could argue NCSG should have four, Rafik + whomever,
> although other parties might balk (or perhaps CSG would say well then us
> too).  I assume also that Rgy,  Rgr, At Large, GAC, etc. will each get four
> as well.
>
> So why doesn’t NPOC simply send notice to the CWG list of four names, and
> NCUC would do the same?
>
> Bill
>
> On Dec 12, 2013, at 9:19 AM, Rudi Vansnick <rudi.vansnick at isoc.be> wrote:
>
> Dear Bill,
>
> So far I was registered for the call yesterday but was unable to join the
> call due to other meetings. I’m happy to step in the fourth position as
> NPOC representative, which I consider being a normal process to have
> democratic representation in/from NCSG.
>
>  Rudi Vansnick
> NPOC chair Policy Committee
> NPOC treasurer
> rudi.vansnick at npoc.org
> Tel : +32 (0)9 329 39 16
> Mobile : +32 (0)475 28 16 32
> www.npoc.org
>
> Op 12-dec.-2013, om 07:37 heeft William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch> het
> volgende geschreven:
>
> on the construction of the Community Working Group on IG.  As per the
> meeting with At Large in BA, NCSG is currently represented by me, Avri, and
> Rafik.  The agreement is to have up to four.  I’d have thought the fourth
> should be NPOC, but was told NPOC people are aware but didn’t put anyone
> forward.  So I guess we could suggest a fourth?
>
> Formal seats on the CWG aside, the deal apparently is that anyone can join
> the mailing list or listen in on the calls.  If you want to sign up, as
> some NCUCers have already, go to
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-internet-governance
>
> Best
>
> Bill
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> *From: *Evan Leibovitch <evan at telly.org>
> *Subject: **Re: [ccwg-internet-governance] What is open, what is limited?*
> *Date: *December 11, 2013 at 9:48:51 PM GMT+1
> *To: *Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com>
> *Cc: *"ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org" <
> ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org>
>
> Thanks, Olivier. I fully agree with this course of action.
>
> Regarding the (optional!) group Skype chat that was mentioned during the
> call; this has been set up but has not been fully populated.
>
> If you wish to be added to the chat you need to be added by someone
> already there, which right now includes the ALAC and NCSG people plus Ken
> Stubbs, Michele Neylon, Renate Dewulf and Tracy Hackshaw. Or feel free to
> contact me (not the list!) with your skype ID and I will add you.
>
> - Evan
>
>
> On 11 December 2013 15:31, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com> wrote:
>
>>  Dear Bill,
>>
>> thanks for this note and apologies for going through this quickly at the
>> end of the call.
>>
>> There are several aspects to our working lists & conference calls and
>> this is what I suggest:
>>
>> *Transparency*
>> As ICANN is open to all participation and in the interest of
>> transparency, our conference calls as well as our mailing list should be
>> "open" to everyone.
>>
>> *Speaking/Writing rights*
>> With the premise that anyone can dial in on a conference call and anyone
>> can subscribe to the mailing list (for convenience I figured it would be
>> better to have a mailing list that's open for everyone to subscribe to
>> rather than asking people to read the proceedings on the mailing list's
>> archive) the question then comes to the differentiation between observers
>> and WG members.
>>
>> - Calls
>> Everyone can dial into the call but only officially designated
>> representatives (ie: members of the CCWG) can speak/intervene. People
>> dialled in the call that do not have a right to speak can channel their
>> input through their official representatives. The person Chairing the call
>> & Staff will make sure this guideline is adhered to.
>>
>> - Mailing list
>> Everyone can be subscribed to the mailing list but only Official
>> designated representatives (ie. members of the CCWG) may post to the list.
>> Observers of the CCWG have their "moderation flag on" which means any
>> posting from them will go to the list moderator which at the moment is
>> Staff - so it doesn't get distributed to everyone. Again, this is done in
>> order to have observers channel their input through their designated
>> members.
>> The moderation flag is something which Staff will need to set manually
>> but it is straight forward.
>>
>> *In Camera Discussions*
>>
>> From time to time, there might be a need for the WG to work "in camera"
>> during a conference call - ie. confidentially. The recording will be
>> stopped and all participants on the call accounted for, with any non WG
>> participants (observers) asked to leave the call. At this stage, I do not
>> expect any "in camera" discussions, but I've said that many times in past
>> working groups until the day when we needed to have such a discussion.
>>
>> We could be picky and give "official observers" a special status so they
>> could remain in the "in camera" discussions if we wanted to.
>>
>> I hope this proposal is satisfactory for everyone. Feedback appreciated.
>>
>> Kindest regards,
>>
>> Olivier
>>
>>
>>
>> On 11/12/2013 18:17, William Drake wrote:
>>
>> Hi
>>
>>  I’m on Skype with a bunch of people trying to understand what Olivier
>> said quickly at the end of the call and whether it is the group consensus.
>>
>>  Is the deal that we agree
>>
>>  1.  4 designated reps formally on the CWG
>> 2.  Those reps or their alternates participate in the conference calls
>> 3.  However, the mailing list would be open to anyone in the community,
>> so we can give out the URL to sign up
>>
>>  Is that right?
>>
>>  Thanks
>>
>>  Bill
>>
>>  On Dec 11, 2013, at 7:03 PM, Louis Lee <louie at louie.net> wrote:
>>
>>  Dear Olivier,
>>
>>  The ASO Address Council have come to full consensus on forwarding the
>> names of following three volunteers to the NRO Executive Council for ASO
>> endorsement:
>>
>>
>>    - Filiz Yilmaz
>>     - Naresh Ajwani
>>     - Martin Levy
>>
>>
>>  I will stay on the list and join conference calls (as I'm able to) as
>> an observer for the time being.
>>
>>  Ergys & Renate,
>>
>>  In anticipation of ASO endorsement, please subscribe all 3 of them to
>> this CCWG mailing list.  Please also provide them as well as myself with
>> access to the CCWG wiki.
>>
>>  Thank you!
>>
>>  Louie Lee
>> Chair, ICANN ASO Address Council
>>
>>
>>  In anticipation of this endorsement, would you please
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 12:09 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com>wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Michele,
>>>
>>> thanks for this. Excellent to hear James is joining. I have asked Ergys
>>> to add him because I don't have the ability to add anyone to the mailing
>>> list. So if you need to add people and that includes the request from Elisa
>>> too, please email ergys.ramaj at icann.org who is the Staff member
>>> supporting the WG and he'll add the names to the list.
>>> Kind regards,
>>>
>>> Olivier
>>>
>>
>>
>>  _______________________________________________
>> ccwg-internet-governance mailing list
>> ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-internet-governance
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ccwg-internet-governance mailing listccwg-internet-governance at icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-internet-governance
>>
>>
>> --
>> Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhDhttp://www.gih.com/ocl.html
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ccwg-internet-governance mailing list
>> ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-internet-governance
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Evan Leibovitch
> Toronto Canada
>
> Em: evan at telly dot org
> Sk: evanleibovitch
> Tw: el56
>
>  _______________________________________________
> ccwg-internet-governance mailing list
> ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-internet-governance
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20131212/0a6f13a8/attachment-0001.html>