On 11 Apr 2016 19:55, "Seun Ojedeji" <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:

Sent from my LG G4
Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 11 Apr 2016 6:39 p.m., "Brenda Brewer" <brenda.brewer@icann.org> wrote:
>
>
> ·        Question 9: change to reflect confirmation of the question: CSC liaison is intended to come from RrSG or NCSG. Only restriction is 
> that this not be from a gTLD registry. 
>
SO: That there is still a "or" between NCSG and RrSG makes me wonder what this mean in practice; that NCSG will not appoint if RrSG appointed a liaison first or the other way round?

Secondly, what's the use of a liaison since the DUO are components of the GNSO. I have not gone to the proposal to check if this is inline but it seem like an overkill to me.

> ·        Question 10: no change. 
>
> ·        Question 11: the "it may be appropriate" section can be placed in the Charter. It is not  for inclusion in Bylaws. 
>
> ·        Question 12: no change. 
>
> ·        Question 13: We can keep the clarification and refer to the original text as inclusive of the broader community of 'consumers'. 
>
SO: sounds more broadly inclusive and clear than the alternative.

Or an 
> alternative: direct customers of the naming services" (text used for CSC).  That text is as follows: "Any necessary additions to the 
> IANA SOW to account for the needs of the consumers of the IANA naming functions [and/or] the ICANN community at large".  
>
> Question 22: no support for defining a simple majority. There is support for use of consensus. The CWG-Stewardship 
> proposal states that the SCWG would follow the stndards established by the CCWG-Principles. 
>

SO: Is this referring to the current CCWG framework open for PC or principles that will be set in the charter of each CCWG? If the former then fine(although I would note that having such mindset early would have been a good thing), however if it's the later I guess the high-level principles of the SCWG is indeed what we are discussing and I don't think it's something to be determined later.

Regards

> ·        Question 24: no change
>
> ·        Other comments: Sharon has one question regaring 18.4a. Will reach out to Avri and Matt to clarify. 
>
> ·        Paul Kane noted concerns with consistency in Bylaws language and focus on gTLDs. 
>
> Action (Sharon): Reach out to Avri and Matt with Client Committee in copy about language in 18.4a.  
>
> 2. AOB
>
> Next meeting (Thursday 14 April at 16:00 UTC). Group may not need a meeting on Thursday.  The implementation update and other items 
> may be able to be provided via email. 
>
> Action (Chairs): Due to time constraints on this call, Chairs will discuss and revert back to group with next steps. 
>
>  
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship@icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>