Hi Everyone, I am travelling at the moment and have only had intermittent internet connectivity. However, I am hoping to join the teleconference later tonight (fingers crossed). I have added a couple of additional comments/queries to the version of the Charter circulated early this morning by Chuck. I also agree with the definitions of consensus proposed by Tijani. Cheers, Julie On 28 Jul 2014, at 2:33 pm, Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa@planet.tn> wrote: Dear all, Being unable to attend Monday’s call, I provide you hereafter with my remarks on the Charter’s last version/ · The “Scope” part was modified according to our last call’s discussion, but the “Problem Statement” and “Goals and Objectives” ones still present the CWG as a joint ccNSO-GNSO WG on the stewardship transition of IANA function related to naming services only. · Deliverables concerns substance, not process. The content of the “Deliverables” section should be under another section called “working methods” for example, while We should say what this CWG has to produce as substance (report about a transition plan, …) with full details in the “deliverable” section · The definition of the consensus level should be in my opinion: o Full Consensus - a position where no minority disagrees; identified by an absence of objection o Consensus – a position where a small minority disagrees, but most agree In the absence of full consensus, the chairs should …. I would like to thank all those who proposed the modifications, especially Avri who captured very well the content of the discussion of last call. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tijani BEN JEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) Phone: + 216 41 649 605 Mobile: + 216 98 330 114 Fax: + 216 70 853 376 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----Message d'origine----- De : cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] De la part de Grace Abuhamad Envoyé : samedi 26 juillet 2014 00:25 À : Allan MacGillivray; Marika Konings; Avri Doria; cwg-dt-stewardship@icann.org Objet : Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] For your review - latest version of charter & notes from meeting Hi all, Attached are two latest versions of the charter. I removed Allan's notes as he requested. One version has redlined changes, the other is clean with just comments. Talk to you all on Monday, Grace On 7/24/14 3:49 PM, "Allan MacGillivray" <allan.macgillivray@cira.ca> wrote:

At the IETF BoF meeting this morning in Toronto, the IETF agreed to establish a working group on IANA transition. Alissa Cooper made a presentation (available at http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/90/slides/slides-90-ianaplan-1.pptx ) which contains (page 11) a revised timeline for the ICG's work. While it remains even 'draftier' than their charter, it nevertheless reflects some discussion that the ICG has apparently had since their meeting last week. You will note that in this timeline, they are no longer seeking a submission from each community by the end of the year, but rather by Feb. 2, just before ICANN Marrakech. But the end date has been moved to June to reflect the likelihood that the NTIA will have to run its own domestic consultation process, which would likely include some form of US Congressional scrutiny.

Marika - could I ask you to remove the notes from me in the next version of the draft charter?

Thanks

Allan

-----Original Message----- From: cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: July-24-14 6:47 AM To: Avri Doria; cwg-dt-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] For your review - latest version of charter & notes from meeting

As the document still came up with the Academy WG name, I've taken the liberty to re-save the document under its original title, removed the comments that Chuck said could be removed and deleted the sentence 'and sub-working groups' to avoid any confusion over whether additional members would need to be appointed to sub-working groups. Please use this version to make any further comments / edits.

Best regards,

Marika

On 22/07/14 16:41, "Avri Doria" <avri@acm.org> wrote:

...

On 22-Jul-14 09:40, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

...

Avri - Your name for the file indicates that you may have been working on the Academy WG around the same time. :)

actually just fumble fingering where i do a 'save as' and accidentally press the wrong name. the academy Wg file is from 2012.

i have attached a copy with the correct file name, just for filing sake.

thanks for noticing.

avri

...

All good contributions Avri.

thanks

...

I really like Avri's suggestion on the linkage between the Accountability effort and the IANA transition; see comment Ad10R9 on page 3.

I think she raises a very important question in comment Ad18R17 on page 4 :" Why would subgroups have different membership?"

I definitely think "we should avoid voting" as she says in comment Ad26R25 on page 5.

On a different note, I suggest deleting the following comments from me: CG1 and CG16.

Chuck

Avri - Your name for the file indicates that you may have been working on the Academy WG around the same time. :)

-----Original Message----- From: cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Monday, July 21, 2014 11:28 PM To: cwg-dt-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] For your review - latest version of charter & notes from meeting

Hi,

I have added a few more comments.

avri

_______________________________________________ CWG-DT-Stewardship mailing list CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-dt-stewardship

Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la protection Antivirus avast! est active. _______________________________________________ CWG-DT-Stewardship mailing list CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-dt-stewardship