Good morning again Everyone, Apologies for bombarding you with even more but I figure it's best to let you have a think about any proposed amendments in advance of our meeting tonight. In discussions on this topic with our SSAC Chair (Patrik Fältström), he made the comment that he is not exactly sure which entities might have 'working groups' as such in the parameter and numbering communities. While this is probably a very minor point for our draft Charter, it is relevant to the following dot point under the heading 'Goals and Objectives': · Meet with the IETF and NSO working groups developing parallel transition proposals to explain the CWGs work and remain up to date on their progress; Perhaps this might be reworded: · Meet with other working groups developing parallel transition proposals, especially for parameters and numbering resources, to explain the CWGs work and remain up to date on their progress; This is less restrictive wording and hopefully allows for all situations. Talk tonight. Cheers, Julie On 9 Aug 2014, at 10:57 am, Julie Hammer <julie.hammer@bigpond.com> wrote: Hi Avri and Everyone, Many thanks for bringing this draft to our attention. I had a quick look at it and agree that it highlighted a couple of things that we might tweak in our CWG draft Charter. In particular, I thought that the following points in the ICG draft Charter were worth incorporating more clearly in ours: ICG Draft Charter Page 3 Section (i) Liaison and "...to coordinate which community will develop a transition proposal for each area of overlap (eg., special-use registry)." ICG Draft Charter Page 4 Section (ii) Assessment "The ICG might at some point detect problems with the component proposals. At that point, the role of the ICG is to communicate that back to the relevant communities so that they (the relevant communities) can address the issues." I have tried to address both these issues by adding words under the section Section III: Deliverables, Timeframes, and Reporting in No 9 on the list of work plan deliverables, which now reads: "9. A process and timeline for communicating with the ICG, including a process for: a) Agreeing any additions requested by the ICG to the scope of the Transition Proposal. For example, the ICG may request the CWG or one of its chartering organizations to develop a transition proposal for a particular area of overlap (eg., special-use registry; and b) Resolving any problems detected by the ICG between other component proposals and this CWG Transition Proposal;" ICG Draft Charter Page 4 Section (ii) Assessment "Each proposal should be submitted with a clear record of how consensus has been reached for the proposal in the community" I have added this as sub-para c) under the heading 'Final Transition Proposal'. and "and provide an analysis that shows the proposal is in practice workable." I have added the sentence "This proposal must provide an analysis that shows that it is in practice workable." at the end of the first para under the heading "Deliverables" These changes have been incorporated in the attached updated version of our draft Charter. Cheers, Julie <DT Charter Template - redline - 8 August 2014 jmh2.doc> On 9 Aug 2014, at 8:21 am, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote: Hi, https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2014-08-08-en < https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/draft-charter-coordination-group...> Do we need any tweaks to accommodate their charter. I think we might need a few, but I don't think they are fundamental, though perhaps procedural. On a first read, I think their charter is rather ok. Though, I may find things to bicker about on further delving. avri _______________________________________________ CWG-DT-Stewardship mailing list CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-dt-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-DT-Stewardship mailing list CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-dt-stewardship