Hi, I remain uncomfortable with a scope that restricts the CWG from addressing issue 1 & 10, even though I realize they are not the primary task. I understand that people do not think it appropriate for ICANN policy participants to give recommendations on anything but names, but since ICANN's scope is broader than that I do not think we should define having a viewpoint on non names subjects as out of scope. It we want we can perhaps indicate that the primary task are 2-9 & 11, but the CWG should be able to comment on anything that the CG does without fear of being called out of scope. Also, I still argue that there will be cross-cutting issues - such as the accountability linkages that won't be strictly put into the silos everyone seems to be agreeing to. I find it ironic that we are being so strict about silos. Who is handling .int - is it an orphan issue? Can we find someway to have both a primary work task and a commenting scope wide enough to pick up anything that needs to be commented on. Also, how are the non ccNSO cctLDs being handled in this process? Do we plan to reach out to them for participation? Should something specific be said about that in the charter? In general I worry about limiting participation to members of the chartering organization in this group. Since any output need to be approved by the chartering organizations anyway, perhaps the group should be open. thanks avri On 16-Jul-14 17:25, Allan MacGillivray wrote:
Dear All,
I developed some text around problem statement, goals and objectives as well as scope which I have included in Marika’s draft. Rather than including a number of options on these important issues, I tried to be as specific as possible on what I think the important issues are in the hope of provoking an early discussion on these key aspects. The text references an Annex listing the IANA functions, which is based on the actual IANA/NTIA contract, as summarized by Becky. I am including this as a separate attachment. We can talk about this on Monday but if there are any questions of clarification or comment before then please ping me.
Allan
*From:*cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Marika Konings *Sent:* July-16-14 6:45 AM *To:* CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* [CWG-DT-Stewardship] For your review - Charter Template
Dear All,
Following our call on Monday, please find attached a first draft of the charter template for your review. Please note that Allan volunteered to provide some draft language for the first three sections (problem statement, goals & objectives, scope) which we'll insert as soon as available. However, to already allow you some time to review some of the other sections which, as discussed, have been populated with language from the initial draft as well as the charter of the Cross-Community Working Group on principles for CWGs, we already wanted to circulate this version now. Note that I've taken the liberty to insert some comments in areas where the DT will need to make some further determinations, provided there is support for the draft language provided. You are encouraged to share any comments / proposed edits you may have ahead of Monday's meeting.
Best regards,
Marika
_______________________________________________ CWG-DT-Stewardship mailing list CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-dt-stewardship