Paul, The RySG team supporting the IANA Transition CWG discussed the idea of reaching out to registries and applicants who have not joined the RySG as members or observers and inviting them to participate in RySG processes in support of the CWG and there was strong support for doing that. I mentioned the idea of using the RySG Accountability List so we do not have to create a new list; if we do that, we would need to add everyone on the RySG & NTAG lists and then any additional participants who are not on those lists. That list could be used for both the IANA Transition and the ICANN Accountability work. If we do that, it would mean that there is no longer a separate list for the Accountability work in the RySG. Does the ExCom need to make a decision on this this? It would be really good if we can have a plan in place before the L.A. meetings so we can promote it there. Chuck From: Cherie Stubbs [mailto:rysgsecretariat@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2014 7:14 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Paul Diaz; Drazek, Keith; 'Jonathan Robinson' (jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com) Subject: Re: Cross Community Working Group (CWG) to develop an Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions Dear all, I've had a chance to further think about this topic as relates to our processes and procedures on membership and/or participation. I've inserted my questions following Chuck's points. My apology if I'm adding undo question or concern. Guess I'm just trying to look at the "business" side of this. I, of course, will make all the necessary accommodations to welcome all to any effort to make this process a success. Thanks again for involving me (and hope you're sorry you didn't!). Cherie ***************************** 1. Invite non-member gTLD registry operators (including new gTLD applicants) to participate as observers even if they choose not to join the RySG. Cherie: How does this impact our current membership process (for Observer participants and voting/non-voting members)? Do we need to amend the Charter relative to membership criteria? Does this diminish any incentive for new gTLD Registries to join through the current process (i.e., application, initial membership dues, etc.)? How would the RySG be contacted from the Registry requesting this category of membership? Would they need to be screened and reviewed? Is there any concern about proxy voting? 2. If they elect to participate, they would be treated as voting members for any decisions made in support of the CWG for the IANA transition only (and maybe later the CWG for the ICANN Accountability process if applicable). Cherie: Would these non-member gTLD registry operators be added to the RySG mailing list? Be able to post and receive all RySG communications (related or not related to the IANA CWG Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions)? Voting should not be a challenge a each call for vote related to this topic would be conducted separately on SurveyMonkey. 3. Make necessary logistical changes to allow for the above. Cherie: Would logistical changes involve showing these gTLD Registries on our membership roster? Website? Separate Google Group set up and maintained? Other? Perhaps a checklist needs to be developed. On Sun, Sep 7, 2014 at 12:03 PM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> wrote: Thanks Cherie. Chuck From: Cherie Stubbs [mailto:rysgsecretariat@gmail.com<mailto:rysgsecretariat@gmail.com>] Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2014 11:52 AM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Paul Diaz; Drazek, Keith; 'Jonathan Robinson' (jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com<mailto:jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com>) Subject: Re: Cross Community Working Group (CWG) to develop an Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions Thanks for copying me, Chuck. Upon an initial read, I do have some process and procedure questions but would like to think about this a bit more before posting anything. I'll send something out by tomorrow morning. Best, Cherie On Sun, Sep 7, 2014 at 2:09 AM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> wrote: Thanks for the quick reply Paul. I hope you and your wife are having a wonderful time sightseeing. I sure had a fantastic day yesterday, including being in Asia and Europe. What I was thinking about regarding logistical changes were things like mailing lists, voting, etc. I would like to think it would not be too hard but I suspect there will be a few adjustments that may be required. We would at least need to carefully look at this. Cherie probably will be a great resource in that regard so I added her as a cc. Chuck From: Paul Diaz [mailto:pdiaz@pir.org<mailto:pdiaz@pir.org>] Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2014 12:31 AM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Drazek, Keith; 'Jonathan Robinson' (jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com<mailto:jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com>) Subject: Re: Cross Community Working Group (CWG) to develop an Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions Seems reasonable to me, Chuck. What "logistical changes" need to be made? The RySG has to start the officer election cycle ASAP. We just need to make sure that there isn't any confusion about voting rights. I'm sightseeing on Istanbul and won't be back until 10 Sept (Wednesday). Won't have much connectivity Tues, but please share thoughts on how to put this plan in motion. Best, P Please forgive typos and syntax errors as this was sent from my iPhone. On Sep 6, 2014, at 10:00 PM, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> wrote: Keith/Paul, One of the things that the RySG will shortly be asked to do is consider modifying our processes to allow non-member registry operators to participate in our processes in support of the Cross Community Working Group (CWG) to develop an Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions. I think that would be fairly simple for us to do. We already allow for observers so we could do the following for the IANA Transition CWG only (and maybe later the CWG for the ICANN Accountability process if applicable): 1. Invite non-member gTLD registry operators (including new gTLD applicants) to participate as observers even if they choose not to join the RySG. 2. If they elect to participate, they would be treated as voting members for any decisions made in support of the CWG for the IANA transition only (and maybe later the CWG for the ICANN Accountability process if applicable). 3. Make necessary logistical changes to allow for the above. What do the two of you think about this? Is this an idea that I should suggest on the RySG list once we are asked to deal with this? Chuck “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately.”