+1 to Chuck suggested modification. Minor question/comment:

Section 4 of Annex 7 "...or, in the case of joint PDPs, without the support of the supporting organizations that developed such PDP.

Considering that we are speaking in the context of names (and considering that the ccNSO has some level of independence policy wise?) Are there example of PDPs/policies developed by both the GNSO and ccNSO (since the ASO would be out of context here)? and secondly is there a definition of joint PDP somewhere?

The "standing" section refers to "IRP Subgroup", may I know who those are and where they are defined?

Regards

On 5 Feb 2016 5:42 p.m., "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:

In the 2^nd Reading Conclusions, item 1.a.iii.1 says: “ICANN should consider modification of Registry Agreements with gTLD Operators to expand scope of arbitration available thereunder to cover PTI service complaints.”  It seems to me that the wording should be stronger: “ICANN must modify Registry Agreements with gTLD Operators to expand scope of arbitration available thereunder to cover PTI service complaints.”

 

I think the same change should be made later in the document when this sentence occurs again.

 

Chuck

 

From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Grace Abuhamad
Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2016 5:18 PM
To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org
Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] CCWG Update

 

Dear CWG-Stewardship, 

 

Today the CCWG-Accountability published its latest version of its recommendations on the IRP. Please see attached for text, and provide any comments you may have. As noted in the email below: 

• This version has been generated from the conclusion of the third reading document and includes the modification required by the CWG for PTI and has been reviewed by Becky Burr.
• As such you will find attached 3 versions, Word and PDF red lined as well as a clean PDF version given the markups are extensive in some sections.
• Once this legal review is completed (48 hours -  

​20:00 ​

 UTC Saturday), results of the review will be published on this list, a final version will be generated and posted for final CCWG comments.​

I have highlighted the deadline above since it is important for the CWG to follow this timeline as well. Considering the time pressure that the CCWG is under, we should do our best to not delay them further. If you are able to post on the CCWG list directly, that would be more efficient for them. Otherwise, I will work with the co-Chairs to transfer the information in time. 

 

I have also attached two documents that help track the status of the CCWG-Accountability work overall. 

 

Best,

Grace

 

From: <acct-staff-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Bernard Turcotte <turcotte.bernard@gmail.com>
Date: Thursday, February 4, 2016 at 2:45 PM
To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org>, ACCT-Staff <acct-staff@icann.org>
Subject: [Acct-Staff] CCWG - Recommendation 7 - Final draft version for legal review

 

​

All,

 

​Per the request of the co-chairs we are publishing the final draft version of  Annex 7  for legal review.

 

This version has been generated from the conclusion of the third reading document and includes the modification required by the CWG for PTI and has been reviewed by Becky Burr.

 

As such you will find attached 3 versions, Word and PDF red lined as well as a clean PDF version given the markups are extensive in some sections.

 

Once this legal review is completed (48 hours - 

​20:00 ​

UTC Saturday), results of the review will be published on this list, a final version will be generated and posted for final CCWG comments.​

 

​Thank You.

 

B​ernard Turcotte

ICANN Staff Support for CCWG

 

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

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