CCWG - Recommendation 6 - Final Text with Board Compromise Language and Avri's amendment to meeting NTIA criteria
All, Please find attached the new draft for recommendation 6 which is being proposed as the consensus position for the CCWG (was circulated Friday last week also). This version is marked up from the final version accepted by the CCWG with the changes for implementing the Board proposal, the addition of a paragraph to explain how the Board proposal came to be (acceptance is in square brackets given the CCWG has not yet accepted it), and the addition of Avri's suggestion to the last section of the annex on NTIA requirements. In the proposed Bylaws language the following section is highlighted in yellow: (or another Cross Community Working Group chartered for such purpose by one or more Supporting Organizations or Advisory Committees) As discussions have indicated on the list there is an issue with this wording and the co-chairs will review potential solutions with the group on the call. Thank You. Bernard Turcotte ICANN Staff Support
I suggest replacing the text: “ (or another Cross Community Working Group chartered for such purpose by one or more Supporting Organizations or Advisory Committees) “ With “Or another appropriately chartered, generally/widely supported, cross community working group” as per Alan’s suggestion. Regards, Bruce Tonkin
Agree with Bruce and Alan (with the idea, the suggested wording might need a bit of fine-tuning). The broad/neutral language is much more suitable for the bylaw. Whether this will be a separate group (doesn't make sense to me personally) or a part of broader WS2 group and how it will be chartered can be decided later. Best regards Tatiana On 09/02/16 10:05, Bruce Tonkin wrote:
I suggest replacing the text:
“ (or another Cross Community Working Group chartered for such purpose by one or more Supporting Organizations or Advisory Committees) “
With
“Or another appropriately chartered, generally/widely supported, cross community working group” as per Alan’s suggestion.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
I think Bruce's language is too vague. It should be clear that the group must be chartered by at least two SO/ACs. Greg On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 4:10 AM, Dr. Tatiana Tropina <t.tropina@mpicc.de> wrote:
Agree with Bruce and Alan (with the idea, the suggested wording might need a bit of fine-tuning). The broad/neutral language is much more suitable for the bylaw. Whether this will be a separate group (doesn't make sense to me personally) or a part of broader WS2 group and how it will be chartered can be decided later. Best regards Tatiana
On 09/02/16 10:05, Bruce Tonkin wrote:
I suggest replacing the text:
“ (or another Cross Community Working Group chartered for such purpose by one or more Supporting Organizations or Advisory Committees) “
With
“Or another appropriately chartered, generally/widely supported, cross community working group” as per Alan’s suggestion.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
_______________________________________________ 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
participants (4)
-
Bernard Turcotte -
Bruce Tonkin -
Dr. Tatiana Tropina -
Greg Shatan