Hi Julie, In relation to point 1, I believe we have settled for other cross-community working groups on 'CWG' as 'ccWG' is deemed too confusingly similar to cc (country code) as used in ccNSO. Best regards, Marika From: Julie Hammer <julie.hammer@bigpond.com> Date: Sunday 20 July 2014 03:01 To: "CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org" <CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org> Cc: Allan MacGillivray <allan.macgillivray@cira.ca>, "Duchesneau, Stephanie" <Stephanie.Duchesneau@neustar.us>, Chuck Gomes <cgomes@verisign.com>, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org>, "Reed, Daniel A" <dan-reed@uiowa.edu> Subject: Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] For your review - Charter Template Apologies to those who receive this email twice. I assume all names are on the group list but not 100% sure. Apologies too for not being able to spend time on this sooner. A couple of additional points from me. 1. I note that the Charter Template abbreviates the term "Cross Community Working Group" to "CWG", but in our text, we are calling it "ccWG". I suggest that we standardise on one or the other, not sure which. In my amendments, I have continued using "ccWG" in the text. 2. I have done a few suggested formatting changes aiming to improve the flow and readability of the document. 3. I have added words to try to pick up on Avri's point about the Charter not precluding comment on IANA Functions 1 and 10 should the ccWG deem that appropriate. 4. In the section titled 'Deliverables', I have tentatively added another step at No3: "Development of a clear process and timeline for communicating the Community proposal to participating chartering organizations and obtaining their endorsement" However, I say tentatively because I'm not sure whether this is the appropriate. Updated document attached. Cheers, Julie