[ALAC] Discussion: CWG-Stewardship role in implementation

[Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond]

Dear Seun,

thanks for your follow-up. Comments inline:

On 17/11/2015 05:38, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
>
> I am totally in support of the expansion and there is no question
> about that. What I am however saying is that this expansion request
> and approval be linked to the governing document (charter) one way or
> the other(once all the Chartering organisations have approved). We are
> already going through the process of expanding the scope and
> including/linking it up with the charter will not require any other
> process.
>

That's what is the problem: the risk is that any actual change to the
charter will void the current charter and launch a process by which each
SO/AC will need to re-approve the charter formally. Some chartering
organisations might need to have a special call for this or might only
be able to do that in a face to face meeting.

> Like I said, it's a minor details that I thought we should just
> advice/hint/mention to the Co-Chairs in our acceptance response.
> Something in the line of "... We accept the expansion and we suggest
> it be linked to the charter as well". If ALAC is not fine with such
> inclusion, it still does not mean I am against the expansion.
>

In light of my explanation above, be careful what you wish for. I'd
leave the determination of what process to take, to the co-chairs of the
CWG Stewardship. After all, they are in touch with their chartering
organisations and often in ICANN, things are presented in a certain way
to avoid risking delays through unintended consequences.

Kindest regards,

Olivier