I would say the issue of scope needs to be in both Work Party 1 and Work Party 2: the community needs to be able to complain about an alleged breach of scope limitations without any party being particularly affected (so WP1) and individual parties need a means to be able to make the same complaint, including about community consensus policy (so also WP2).



On 8 Feb 2015, at 14:09, Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com> wrote:

The scope issue is definitely in Work Stream 1. 

The slide we were looking at during Milton's question was Work Party 1.

Is that part of the confusion, or is Scope also in Work Party 1?

Keith

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 8, 2015, at 2:06 PM, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> wrote:

Agreed.  The point about keeping ICANN is scope was put in WP1 in Frankfurt.  I'm not sure how it didn't make it onto today's slide.

Thanks,
Robin

On Feb 7, 2015, at 8:03 PM, Jordan Carter wrote:

hi all

Could a couple of typos in the powerpoint be fixed, and could the point about keeping ICANN in scope be added as a community empowerment WP bullet?

Jordan

--
Jordan Carter

Chief Executive
InternetNZ

04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob)
jordan@internetnz.net.nz
Skype: jordancarter

To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.

_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community