Suggestion about decription of requirements identified by CWG-Stewardship
Dear all, I found the meetings in the past two days extremely helpful in setting directions on points which needed confirmation of support (or no support) by CCWG members. That was great. Before I offload my head from ICANN Accountability issues over the weekend, I would like to raise one point here on the mailing list, which I suggested on the chat at one of the calls on Thursday 23 April. For the mechanisms we are proposing for WP1 and WP2, may I suggest to reflect in our proposal for the public comments, the mechanisms identified as requirements in CWG-Stewardship? I would think it is not complicated, if we add a sub-section such as "Requirements identified by CWG" in Section "5. Input Gathered from the Community - Required Community Powers", and refer to specific mechanisms in WS1 and WS2 which correspond to CWG requirements, for example. This would: - Make our considerations for requirements look more comprehensive, in addition to the requirements identified through the public comments which is already in the current draft of our proposal. - Helps the readers to have a better understanding on why this particular mechanism is needed and how it helps, when considering their feedback. - Gives more concrete assurance to CWG-Stewardship members that CCWG are addressing their requirements in a publicly visible form. Thanks, Izumi
Looks like a very useful idea. best Jorge Cancio Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 25.04.2015 um 00:33 schrieb Izumi Okutani <izumi@nic.ad.jp>:
Dear all,
I found the meetings in the past two days extremely helpful in setting directions on points which needed confirmation of support (or no support) by CCWG members. That was great.
Before I offload my head from ICANN Accountability issues over the weekend, I would like to raise one point here on the mailing list, which I suggested on the chat at one of the calls on Thursday 23 April.
For the mechanisms we are proposing for WP1 and WP2, may I suggest to reflect in our proposal for the public comments, the mechanisms identified as requirements in CWG-Stewardship?
I would think it is not complicated, if we add a sub-section such as "Requirements identified by CWG" in Section "5. Input Gathered from the Community - Required Community Powers", and refer to specific mechanisms in WS1 and WS2 which correspond to CWG requirements, for example.
This would: - Make our considerations for requirements look more comprehensive, in addition to the requirements identified through the public comments which is already in the current draft of our proposal. - Helps the readers to have a better understanding on why this particular mechanism is needed and how it helps, when considering their feedback. - Gives more concrete assurance to CWG-Stewardship members that CCWG are addressing their requirements in a publicly visible form.
Thanks, Izumi
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
And we need a Consensus Call, and the (my) minority viewpoint must be attached as per the Charter. el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On Apr 25, 2015, at 09:39, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
Looks like a very useful idea.
best
Jorge Cancio
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 25.04.2015 um 00:33 schrieb Izumi Okutani <izumi@nic.ad.jp>:
Dear all,
I found the meetings in the past two days extremely helpful in setting directions on points which needed confirmation of support (or no support) by CCWG members. That was great.
Before I offload my head from ICANN Accountability issues over the weekend, I would like to raise one point here on the mailing list, which I suggested on the chat at one of the calls on Thursday 23 April.
For the mechanisms we are proposing for WP1 and WP2, may I suggest to reflect in our proposal for the public comments, the mechanisms identified as requirements in CWG-Stewardship?
I would think it is not complicated, if we add a sub-section such as "Requirements identified by CWG" in Section "5. Input Gathered from the Community - Required Community Powers", and refer to specific mechanisms in WS1 and WS2 which correspond to CWG requirements, for example.
This would: - Make our considerations for requirements look more comprehensive, in addition to the requirements identified through the public comments which is already in the current draft of our proposal. - Helps the readers to have a better understanding on why this particular mechanism is needed and how it helps, when considering their feedback. - Gives more concrete assurance to CWG-Stewardship members that CCWG are addressing their requirements in a publicly visible form.
Thanks, Izumi
_______________________________________________ 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 (3)
-
Dr Eberhard W Lisse -
Izumi Okutani -
Jorge.Cancio＠bakom.admin.ch