The note on Number 9 is incorrect. The reference should be to the NCPH (Non-Contracted Parties House) not to the NCSG (Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group, which is 1/2 of the NCPH). Please correct this to read: change to reflect confirmation of the question: CSC liaison is intended to come from RrSG or *NCPH*. Only restriction is that this not be from a gTLD registry. [image: http://hilweb1/images/signature.jpg] *Gregory S. Shatan | Partner*McCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP 245 Park Avenue, 27th Floor | New York, New York 10167 T: 212-609-6873 F: 212-416-7613 gshatan @mccarter.com | www.mccarter.com BOSTON | HARTFORD | STAMFORD | NEW YORK | NEWARK EAST BRUNSWICK | PHILADELPHIA | WILMINGTON | WASHINGTON, DC On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 1:37 PM, Brenda Brewer <brenda.brewer@icann.org> wrote:
Dear all,
The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CWG IANA Bylaws Review Meeting on 11 April will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/RieAAw
A copy of the notes and action items may be found below.
Kind regards,
Brenda
[image: ---]
Action Items
*Action* *(Sharon): Reach out to Avri and Matt with Client Committee in copy about language in 18.4a.*
*Action (Chairs): Due to time constraints on this call, Chairs will discuss and revert back to group with next steps.*
Notes
*1. Review of CWG-Stewardship responses on Bylaws (lead by DT leads for each section)*
· *Question 8*: response approved with "direct customers"
· *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.
· *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'. 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 14*: no change.
· *Question 15*: no change.
· *Question 16* : Suggest going back to original CWG proposal language ("reasonable consultation with SOs and ACs")
· *Question 17*: clarification on the definition of performance.
· *Question 18*: no change
· *Question 19*: no change
· *Question 20* : Suggestion for "as many individuals be appointed as possible". Agreement no to specify any numbers.
· *Question 21*: no change
· *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.
· *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
