Gabi, Paulos, I think it should read: The chair of the working group shall exercise reasonable discretion as to whether the charter does provide guidance and/or the impact of the charter is workable with respect to conduct the business of the working group Kind regards, BArt ________________________________________ From: owner-ccnso-council@icann.org [owner-ccnso-council@icann.org] On Behalf Of Gabriella Schittek [gabriella.schittek@icann.org] Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 3:22 AM To: paulos@sdnp.org.mw; ccnso-council@icann.org Subject: Re: [ccnso-council] DRDWG-9? - Re: July Update from ICANN's Policy Department Posted Paulos, I checked with the last version of the Charter which was sent to me (on the 5th June) and the text in article 9 is identical to the one posted online. Reading the text, I think that an “s” might be missing behind the word “question”. If you read it like “questions” the text might make more sense? Gabi On 7/29/09 12:04 PM, "Dr Paulos Nyirenda" <paulos@sdnp.org.mw> wrote: Gabi, It appears that the charter for the ccNSO Delegation & Redelegation Working Group has errors on article 9 which as posted at http://www.ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/drdwg.htm reads as follows: "9. Omission in or unreasonable impact of Charter The chair of the working group shall exercise reasonable discretion with respect to question as to which this charter does not provide guidance and/or the impact of the charter is unworkable with respect to the conduct of business of the working group." This does not seem to make a lot of sense. Could you please check with the original text to see if some text was missed in making this post to the ccNSO website? Regards, Paulos ====================== Dr Paulos B Nyirenda .mw ccTLD http://www.registrar.mw On 29 Jul 2009 at 0:06, Gabriella Schittek wrote:

Dear all,

The latest update from ICANN’s Policy Department is now available at http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-jul09-en.htm#1

The update is also available in all six official UN languages (English, Spanish, French, Arabic, Simplified Chinese, Russian).

Issues 2 -6 are ccTLD related:

2) ccNSO Working Group Eyes DNS Emergency Response Planning - a new ccNSO ad-hoc working group on Emergency Response Planning has been formed.

3) Sydney Session Focuses on Strategic Planning Issues - an overview of the Strategic Planning Workshop held during the ccNSO meeting in Sydney.

4) ccNSO, GNSO Council Seek Consensus Approach on gTLD Issues - issues with the timing of the launch of the new gTLD process and the IDN ccTLD Fast Track leads to the formation of a gNSO/ccNSO Working Group, with the goal to get them resolved in a joint effort.

5) Members Named to Delegation and Redelegation Working Group - the members of the Delegation and Redelegation Working Group were confirmed during the ccNSO Council meeting in Sydney.

6) ccNSO Meetings Evaluation Conducted - an evaluation of the ccNSO meeting in Sydney was conducted, the results are available online.

7) Operators Asked to Participate in DNSSEC Survey - a new version of the DNSSEC survey (first conducted in 2007) has been launched. All ccTLD Operators are invited to participate.

Another topic of interest may be:

11) Board Approves Geographic Regions Review Charter - the ICANN Board has approved the Charter of the Geographic Regions Review Working Group. The Working Group is determining whether the uses of ICANN’s Geographic Regions (as currently defined) continue to meet the requirements of the relevant stakeholders and will submit proposals for community and Board consideration relating to the current and future uses and definition of the ICANN Geographic Regions.

Kind regards,

Gabi

...and I mean 31 July, of course... Gabi On 7/29/09 1:47 PM, "Gabriella Schittek" <gabriella.schittek@icann.org> wrote: If you're all happy with this formulation, I will go ahead and change it. Let me know if you have any problems with it by this Friday, 31st August. Many thanks, Gabi On 7/29/09 1:43 PM, "Bart Boswinkel" <bart.boswinkel@icann.org> wrote: Gabi, Paulos, I think it should read: The chair of the working group shall exercise reasonable discretion as to whether the charter does provide guidance and/or the impact of the charter is workable with respect to conduct the business of the working group Kind regards, BArt ________________________________________ From: owner-ccnso-council@icann.org [owner-ccnso-council@icann.org] On Behalf Of Gabriella Schittek [gabriella.schittek@icann.org] Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 3:22 AM To: paulos@sdnp.org.mw; ccnso-council@icann.org Subject: Re: [ccnso-council] DRDWG-9? - Re: July Update from ICANN's Policy Department Posted Paulos, I checked with the last version of the Charter which was sent to me (on the 5th June) and the text in article 9 is identical to the one posted online. Reading the text, I think that an "s" might be missing behind the word "question". If you read it like "questions" the text might make more sense? Gabi On 7/29/09 12:04 PM, "Dr Paulos Nyirenda" <paulos@sdnp.org.mw> wrote: Gabi, It appears that the charter for the ccNSO Delegation & Redelegation Working Group has errors on article 9 which as posted at http://www.ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/drdwg.htm reads as follows: "9. Omission in or unreasonable impact of Charter The chair of the working group shall exercise reasonable discretion with respect to question as to which this charter does not provide guidance and/or the impact of the charter is unworkable with respect to the conduct of business of the working group." This does not seem to make a lot of sense. Could you please check with the original text to see if some text was missed in making this post to the ccNSO website? Regards, Paulos ====================== Dr Paulos B Nyirenda .mw ccTLD http://www.registrar.mw On 29 Jul 2009 at 0:06, Gabriella Schittek wrote:

Dear all,

The latest update from ICANN's Policy Department is now available at http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-jul09-en.htm#1

The update is also available in all six official UN languages (English, Spanish, French, Arabic, Simplified Chinese, Russian).

Issues 2 -6 are ccTLD related:

2) ccNSO Working Group Eyes DNS Emergency Response Planning - a new ccNSO ad-hoc working group on Emergency Response Planning has been formed.

3) Sydney Session Focuses on Strategic Planning Issues - an overview of the Strategic Planning Workshop held during the ccNSO meeting in Sydney.

4) ccNSO, GNSO Council Seek Consensus Approach on gTLD Issues - issues with the timing of the launch of the new gTLD process and the IDN ccTLD Fast Track leads to the formation of a gNSO/ccNSO Working Group, with the goal to get them resolved in a joint effort.

5) Members Named to Delegation and Redelegation Working Group - the members of the Delegation and Redelegation Working Group were confirmed during the ccNSO Council meeting in Sydney.

6) ccNSO Meetings Evaluation Conducted - an evaluation of the ccNSO meeting in Sydney was conducted, the results are available online.

7) Operators Asked to Participate in DNSSEC Survey - a new version of the DNSSEC survey (first conducted in 2007) has been launched. All ccTLD Operators are invited to participate.

Another topic of interest may be:

11) Board Approves Geographic Regions Review Charter - the ICANN Board has approved the Charter of the Geographic Regions Review Working Group. The Working Group is determining whether the uses of ICANN's Geographic Regions (as currently defined) continue to meet the requirements of the relevant stakeholders and will submit proposals for community and Board consideration relating to the current and future uses and definition of the ICANN Geographic Regions.

Kind regards,

Gabi

Bart, Sticking a "whether" just after the "and/or" may help to make this clearer, provided it does not change the meaning. Regards, Paulos ====================== Dr Paulos B Nyirenda .mw ccTLD http://www.registrar.mw On 29 Jul 2009 at 4:43, Bart Boswinkel wrote:

Gabi, Paulos,

I think it should read: The chair of the working group shall exercise reasonable discretion as to whether the charter does provide guidance and/or the impact of the charter is workable with respect to conduct the business of the working group Kind regards, BArt ________________________________________ From: owner-ccnso-council@icann.org [owner-ccnso-council@icann.org] On Behalf Of Gabriella Schittek [gabriella.schittek@icann.org] Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 3:22 AM To: paulos@sdnp.org.mw; ccnso-council@icann.org Subject: Re: [ccnso-council] DRDWG-9? - Re: July Update from ICANN's Policy Department Posted

Paulos,

I checked with the last version of the Charter which was sent to me (on the 5th June) and the text in article 9 is identical to the one posted online.

Reading the text, I think that an "s" might be missing behind the word "question". If you read it like "questions" the text might make more sense?

Gabi

On 7/29/09 12:04 PM, "Dr Paulos Nyirenda" <paulos@sdnp.org.mw> wrote:

Gabi,

It appears that the charter for the ccNSO Delegation & Redelegation Working Group has errors on article 9 which as posted at http://www.ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/drdwg.htm reads as follows:

"9. Omission in or unreasonable impact of Charter The chair of the working group shall exercise reasonable discretion with respect to question as to which this charter does not provide guidance and/or the impact of the charter is unworkable with respect to the conduct of business of the working group."

This does not seem to make a lot of sense. Could you please check with the original text to see if some text was missed in making this post to the ccNSO website?

Regards,

Paulos ====================== Dr Paulos B Nyirenda .mw ccTLD http://www.registrar.mw

On 29 Jul 2009 at 0:06, Gabriella Schittek wrote:

...

Dear all,

The latest update from ICANN´s Policy Department is now available at http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-jul09-en.htm#1

The update is also available in all six official UN languages (English, Spanish, French, Arabic, Simplified Chinese, Russian).

Issues 2 -6 are ccTLD related:

2) ccNSO Working Group Eyes DNS Emergency Response Planning - a new ccNSO ad-hoc working group on Emergency Response Planning has been formed.

3) Sydney Session Focuses on Strategic Planning Issues - an overview of the Strategic Planning Workshop held during the ccNSO meeting in Sydney.

4) ccNSO, GNSO Council Seek Consensus Approach on gTLD Issues - issues with the timing of the launch of the new gTLD process and the IDN ccTLD Fast Track leads to the formation of a gNSO/ccNSO Working Group, with the goal to get them resolved in a joint effort.

5) Members Named to Delegation and Redelegation Working Group - the members of the Delegation and Redelegation Working Group were confirmed during the ccNSO Council meeting in Sydney.

6) ccNSO Meetings Evaluation Conducted - an evaluation of the ccNSO meeting in Sydney was conducted, the results are available online.

7) Operators Asked to Participate in DNSSEC Survey - a new version of the DNSSEC survey (first conducted in 2007) has been launched. All ccTLD Operators are invited to participate.

Another topic of interest may be:

11) Board Approves Geographic Regions Review Charter - the ICANN Board has approved the Charter of the Geographic Regions Review Working Group. The Working Group is determining whether the uses of ICANN´s Geographic Regions (as currently defined) continue to meet the requirements of the relevant stakeholders and will submit proposals for community and Board consideration relating to the current and future uses and definition of the ICANN Geographic Regions.

Kind regards,

Gabi

Given Patricio's concerns, I will wait with making any changes to this paragraph until Bart returns from his holidays (mid August), when this issue can be clarified. Gabi On 7/29/09 5:56 PM, "Patricio Poblete" <ppoblete@nic.cl> wrote: I think Bart's wording changes the intent of the original paragraph. This kind of clause has evolved from versions used in the charter of other working groups. For instance, in the Processes WG we had: Omission in or unreasonable impact of Charter In the event this charter does not provide guidance and/or the impact of the charter is unreasonable for conducting the business of the WG the chair of the WG will decide. This was very clear: if something was not anticipated when writing the charter, or is unreasonable, the chair decides. It seems that for this WG there was an attempt to rewrite the clause in a more elegant way, but Bart's wording only gives the chair the power to judge whether the charter covers the given situation, or whether the outcome is unreasonable, but does NOT give the chair the power to make a decision as to what should be done when that happens. Patricio Bart Boswinkel wrote: Gabi, Paulos, I think it should read: The chair of the working group shall exercise reasonable discretion as to whether the charter does provide guidance and/or the impact of the charter is workable with respect to conduct the business of the working group Kind regards, BArt ________________________________________ From: owner-ccnso-council@icann.org [owner-ccnso-council@icann.org] On Behalf Of Gabriella Schittek [gabriella.schittek@icann.org] Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 3:22 AM To: paulos@sdnp.org.mw; ccnso-council@icann.org Subject: Re: [ccnso-council] DRDWG-9? - Re: July Update from ICANN's Policy Department Posted Paulos, I checked with the last version of the Charter which was sent to me (on the 5th June) and the text in article 9 is identical to the one posted online. Reading the text, I think that an "s" might be missing behind the word "question". If you read it like "questions" the text might make more sense? Gabi On 7/29/09 12:04 PM, "Dr Paulos Nyirenda" <paulos@sdnp.org.mw> <mailto:paulos@sdnp.org.mw> wrote: Gabi, It appears that the charter for the ccNSO Delegation & Redelegation Working Group has errors on article 9 which as posted at http://www.ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/drdwg.htm reads as follows: "9. Omission in or unreasonable impact of Charter The chair of the working group shall exercise reasonable discretion with respect to question as to which this charter does not provide guidance and/or the impact of the charter is unworkable with respect to the conduct of business of the working group." This does not seem to make a lot of sense. Could you please check with the original text to see if some text was missed in making this post to the ccNSO website? Regards, Paulos ====================== Dr Paulos B Nyirenda .mw ccTLD http://www.registrar.mw On 29 Jul 2009 at 0:06, Gabriella Schittek wrote: Dear all, The latest update from ICANN's Policy Department is now available at http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-jul09-en.htm#1 The update is also available in all six official UN languages (English, Spanish, French, Arabic, Simplified Chinese, Russian). Issues 2 -6 are ccTLD related: 2) ccNSO Working Group Eyes DNS Emergency Response Planning - a new ccNSO ad-hoc working group on Emergency Response Planning has been formed. 3) Sydney Session Focuses on Strategic Planning Issues - an overview of the Strategic Planning Workshop held during the ccNSO meeting in Sydney. 4) ccNSO, GNSO Council Seek Consensus Approach on gTLD Issues - issues with the timing of the launch of the new gTLD process and the IDN ccTLD Fast Track leads to the formation of a gNSO/ccNSO Working Group, with the goal to get them resolved in a joint effort. 5) Members Named to Delegation and Redelegation Working Group - the members of the Delegation and Redelegation Working Group were confirmed during the ccNSO Council meeting in Sydney. 6) ccNSO Meetings Evaluation Conducted - an evaluation of the ccNSO meeting in Sydney was conducted, the results are available online. 7) Operators Asked to Participate in DNSSEC Survey - a new version of the DNSSEC survey (first conducted in 2007) has been launched. All ccTLD Operators are invited to participate. Another topic of interest may be: 11) Board Approves Geographic Regions Review Charter - the ICANN Board has approved the Charter of the Geographic Regions Review Working Group. The Working Group is determining whether the uses of ICANN's Geographic Regions (as currently defined) continue to meet the requirements of the relevant stakeholders and will submit proposals for community and Board consideration relating to the current and future uses and definition of the ICANN Geographic Regions. Kind regards, Gabi