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. Bernard Turcotte ICANN Staff Support for CCWG
In the 2nd 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<mailto:acct-staff-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Bernard Turcotte <turcotte.bernard@gmail.com<mailto:turcotte.bernard@gmail.com>> Date: Thursday, February 4, 2016 at 2:45 PM To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>>, ACCT-Staff <acct-staff@icann.org<mailto: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. Bernard Turcotte ICANN Staff Support for CCWG
Thank you Chuck. Will pass this to the CCWG side. From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> Date: Friday, February 5, 2016 at 11:40 AM To: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org>, "cwg-stewardship@icann.org" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: RE: CCWG Update In the 2nd 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. Bernard Turcotte ICANN Staff Support for CCWG
+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 2nd 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.
Bernard Turcotte
ICANN Staff Support for CCWG
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Seun, I don’t think there is such a thing as a joint PDP but there are joint WGs. There is a cross community working group that has been deliberating for a couple years to develop recommendations for cross community working groups. I am not in the WG but I believe that they are leaning toward recommending the process that has been used in cross community WGs to date, i.e., that it is up to each supporting organization to decide whether they support any policy recommendations. Here’s a link to WG site: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active/cross-community Chuck From: Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, February 05, 2016 1:47 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org; Grace Abuhamad Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CCWG Update +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<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> wrote: In the 2nd 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> [mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:acct-staff-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Bernard Turcotte <turcotte.bernard@gmail.com<mailto:turcotte.bernard@gmail.com>> Date: Thursday, February 4, 2016 at 2:45 PM To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>>, ACCT-Staff <acct-staff@icann.org<mailto: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. Bernard Turcotte ICANN Staff Support for CCWG _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Thanks Chuck, in that case there may be need to remove the section referring to "joint PDP" in the document. I still have one more pending question on the "IRP subgroup" as I can't seem to figure out who those are, neither can I find a definition for such. Cheers! On 6 Feb 2016 3:04 p.m., "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
Seun,
I don’t think there is such a thing as a joint PDP but there are joint WGs. There is a cross community working group that has been deliberating for a couple years to develop recommendations for cross community working groups. I am not in the WG but I believe that they are leaning toward recommending the process that has been used in cross community WGs to date, i.e., that it is up to each supporting organization to decide whether they support any policy recommendations. Here’s a link to WG site: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active/cross-community
Chuck
*From:* Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com] *Sent:* Friday, February 05, 2016 1:47 PM *To:* Gomes, Chuck *Cc:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org; Grace Abuhamad *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CCWG Update
+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 2nd 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.
Bernard Turcotte
ICANN Staff Support for CCWG
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Should we say ‘cross community WG’ instead of ‘joint PDP’? Chuck From: Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, February 06, 2016 1:39 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Grace Abuhamad; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] CCWG Update Thanks Chuck, in that case there may be need to remove the section referring to "joint PDP" in the document. I still have one more pending question on the "IRP subgroup" as I can't seem to figure out who those are, neither can I find a definition for such. Cheers! On 6 Feb 2016 3:04 p.m., "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> wrote: Seun, I don’t think there is such a thing as a joint PDP but there are joint WGs. There is a cross community working group that has been deliberating for a couple years to develop recommendations for cross community working groups. I am not in the WG but I believe that they are leaning toward recommending the process that has been used in cross community WGs to date, i.e., that it is up to each supporting organization to decide whether they support any policy recommendations. Here’s a link to WG site: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active/cross-community Chuck From: Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>] Sent: Friday, February 05, 2016 1:47 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>; Grace Abuhamad Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CCWG Update +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<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> wrote: In the 2nd 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> [mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:acct-staff-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Bernard Turcotte <turcotte.bernard@gmail.com<mailto:turcotte.bernard@gmail.com>> Date: Thursday, February 4, 2016 at 2:45 PM To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>>, ACCT-Staff <acct-staff@icann.org<mailto: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. Bernard Turcotte ICANN Staff Support for CCWG _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
That would have done the trick but if the intent is to only cover SOs then using cross community WG may broaden the scope beyond supporting organisations. Regards Should we say ‘cross community WG’ instead of ‘joint PDP’? Chuck *From:* Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com] *Sent:* Saturday, February 06, 2016 1:39 PM *To:* Gomes, Chuck *Cc:* Grace Abuhamad; cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* RE: [CWG-Stewardship] CCWG Update Thanks Chuck, in that case there may be need to remove the section referring to "joint PDP" in the document. I still have one more pending question on the "IRP subgroup" as I can't seem to figure out who those are, neither can I find a definition for such. Cheers! On 6 Feb 2016 3:04 p.m., "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote: Seun, I don’t think there is such a thing as a joint PDP but there are joint WGs. There is a cross community working group that has been deliberating for a couple years to develop recommendations for cross community working groups. I am not in the WG but I believe that they are leaning toward recommending the process that has been used in cross community WGs to date, i.e., that it is up to each supporting organization to decide whether they support any policy recommendations. Here’s a link to WG site: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active/cross-community Chuck *From:* Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com] *Sent:* Friday, February 05, 2016 1:47 PM *To:* Gomes, Chuck *Cc:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org; Grace Abuhamad *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CCWG Update +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 2nd 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. Bernard Turcotte ICANN Staff Support for CCWG _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
The carve-out language is limited to discussion of PDPs. Not every WG is a PDP WG. Unless we want to expand this limitation, any revision needs to carry on this limitation. The reference to a "joint PDP" is specifically in the context of the results of a policy development process developed by two or more supporting organizations. Here's the paragraph under discussion: *Notwithstanding the foregoing and notwithstanding any required threshold for launching a community IRP, no community IRP that challenges the result(s) of a supporting organization’s policy development process (PDP) may be launched without the support of the supporting organization that developed such PDP or, in the case of joint PDPs, without the support of the supporting organizations that developed such PDP.* The language in the latter part is kind of clumsy. "Joint PDP" is an awkward shorthand for a PDP WG chartered by more than one SO -- not one where there underlying policy development process was jointly developed by multiple SOs (which doesn't exist). In turn, it refers to a challenge to the "results" of the PDP, not really to the PDP itself. For clarity, I would suggest the following: *Notwithstanding the foregoing and notwithstanding any required threshold for launching a community IRP, no community IRP that challenges the result(s) of a supporting organization’s policy development process (PDP) may be launched without the support of the supporting organization that developed such PDP or, in the case of the result(s) of a PDP working group chartered by more than one supporting organization, without the support of such supporting organizations.* In any event, this discussion of the "joint PDP" language may be out of scope for CWG-Stewardship. As such, this comment should be referred back to CCWG-Accountability for its review and consideration. Greg On Sun, Feb 7, 2016 at 10:12 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
That would have done the trick but if the intent is to only cover SOs then using cross community WG may broaden the scope beyond supporting organisations.
Regards
Should we say ‘cross community WG’ instead of ‘joint PDP’?
Chuck
*From:* Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com] *Sent:* Saturday, February 06, 2016 1:39 PM *To:* Gomes, Chuck *Cc:* Grace Abuhamad; cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* RE: [CWG-Stewardship] CCWG Update
Thanks Chuck, in that case there may be need to remove the section referring to "joint PDP" in the document.
I still have one more pending question on the "IRP subgroup" as I can't seem to figure out who those are, neither can I find a definition for such.
Cheers!
On 6 Feb 2016 3:04 p.m., "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
Seun,
I don’t think there is such a thing as a joint PDP but there are joint WGs. There is a cross community working group that has been deliberating for a couple years to develop recommendations for cross community working groups. I am not in the WG but I believe that they are leaning toward recommending the process that has been used in cross community WGs to date, i.e., that it is up to each supporting organization to decide whether they support any policy recommendations. Here’s a link to WG site: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active/cross-community
Chuck
*From:* Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com] *Sent:* Friday, February 05, 2016 1:47 PM *To:* Gomes, Chuck *Cc:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org; Grace Abuhamad *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CCWG Update
+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 2nd 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.
Bernard 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
Here are some additional edits for consideration to the language you suggested Greg: “Notwithstanding the foregoing and notwithstanding any required threshold for launching a community IRP, no community IRP that challenges the result(s) of a supporting organization’s policy development process (PDP) may be launched without the support of the supporting organization that developed such PDPapproved policy recommendations from the PDP or, in the case of the result(s) of a PDPcross community working group (CCWG) chartered by more than one supporting organization, without the support of such the supporting organizations that approved the policy recommendations from that CCWG.” I don’t this this changes the intent but I believe it is more accurately worded. For one thing, SOs don’t develop PDPs, they develop policy recommendations using PDPs. And as already noted, there is no such thing as a cross community PDP. I think the edited wording above more accurately reflect what is intended, but I welcome additional edits. Chuck From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, February 07, 2016 3:55 PM To: Seun Ojedeji Cc: Gomes, Chuck; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CCWG Update The carve-out language is limited to discussion of PDPs. Not every WG is a PDP WG. Unless we want to expand this limitation, any revision needs to carry on this limitation. The reference to a "joint PDP" is specifically in the context of the results of a policy development process developed by two or more supporting organizations. Here's the paragraph under discussion: Notwithstanding the foregoing and notwithstanding any required threshold for launching a community IRP, no community IRP that challenges the result(s) of a supporting organization’s policy development process (PDP) may be launched without the support of the supporting organization that developed such PDP or, in the case of joint PDPs, without the support of the supporting organizations that developed such PDP. The language in the latter part is kind of clumsy. "Joint PDP" is an awkward shorthand for a PDP WG chartered by more than one SO -- not one where there underlying policy development process was jointly developed by multiple SOs (which doesn't exist). In turn, it refers to a challenge to the "results" of the PDP, not really to the PDP itself. For clarity, I would suggest the following: Notwithstanding the foregoing and notwithstanding any required threshold for launching a community IRP, no community IRP that challenges the result(s) of a supporting organization’s policy development process (PDP) may be launched without the support of the supporting organization that developed such PDP or, in the case of the result(s) of a PDP working group chartered by more than one supporting organization, without the support of such supporting organizations. In any event, this discussion of the "joint PDP" language may be out of scope for CWG-Stewardship. As such, this comment should be referred back to CCWG-Accountability for its review and consideration. Greg On Sun, Feb 7, 2016 at 10:12 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>> wrote: That would have done the trick but if the intent is to only cover SOs then using cross community WG may broaden the scope beyond supporting organisations. Regards Should we say ‘cross community WG’ instead of ‘joint PDP’? Chuck From: Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>] Sent: Saturday, February 06, 2016 1:39 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Grace Abuhamad; cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] CCWG Update Thanks Chuck, in that case there may be need to remove the section referring to "joint PDP" in the document. I still have one more pending question on the "IRP subgroup" as I can't seem to figure out who those are, neither can I find a definition for such. Cheers! On 6 Feb 2016 3:04 p.m., "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> wrote: Seun, I don’t think there is such a thing as a joint PDP but there are joint WGs. There is a cross community working group that has been deliberating for a couple years to develop recommendations for cross community working groups. I am not in the WG but I believe that they are leaning toward recommending the process that has been used in cross community WGs to date, i.e., that it is up to each supporting organization to decide whether they support any policy recommendations. Here’s a link to WG site: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active/cross-community Chuck From: Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>] Sent: Friday, February 05, 2016 1:47 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>; Grace Abuhamad Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CCWG Update +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<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> wrote: In the 2nd 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> [mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:acct-staff-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Bernard Turcotte <turcotte.bernard@gmail.com<mailto:turcotte.bernard@gmail.com>> Date: Thursday, February 4, 2016 at 2:45 PM To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>>, ACCT-Staff <acct-staff@icann.org<mailto: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. Bernard Turcotte ICANN Staff Support for CCWG _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
This discussion has passed the comment deadline on the CCWG side, but I will pass it on regardless, for their consideration. From: <cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> Date: Monday, February 8, 2016 at 9:35 AM To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> Cc: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CCWG Update Here are some additional edits for consideration to the language you suggested Greg: “Notwithstanding the foregoing and notwithstanding any required threshold for launching a community IRP, no community IRP that challenges the result(s) of a supporting organization’s policy development process (PDP) may be launched without the support of the supporting organization that developed such PDPapproved policy recommendations from the PDP or, in the case of the result(s) of a PDPcross community working group (CCWG) chartered by more than one supporting organization, without the support of such the supporting organizations that approved the policy recommendations from that CCWG.” I don’t this this changes the intent but I believe it is more accurately worded. For one thing, SOs don’t develop PDPs, they develop policy recommendations using PDPs. And as already noted, there is no such thing as a cross community PDP. I think the edited wording above more accurately reflect what is intended, but I welcome additional edits. Chuck From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, February 07, 2016 3:55 PM To: Seun Ojedeji Cc: Gomes, Chuck; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CCWG Update The carve-out language is limited to discussion of PDPs. Not every WG is a PDP WG. Unless we want to expand this limitation, any revision needs to carry on this limitation. The reference to a "joint PDP" is specifically in the context of the results of a policy development process developed by two or more supporting organizations. Here's the paragraph under discussion: Notwithstanding the foregoing and notwithstanding any required threshold for launching a community IRP, no community IRP that challenges the result(s) of a supporting organization’s policy development process (PDP) may be launched without the support of the supporting organization that developed such PDP or, in the case of joint PDPs, without the support of the supporting organizations that developed such PDP. The language in the latter part is kind of clumsy. "Joint PDP" is an awkward shorthand for a PDP WG chartered by more than one SO -- not one where there underlying policy development process was jointly developed by multiple SOs (which doesn't exist). In turn, it refers to a challenge to the "results" of the PDP, not really to the PDP itself. For clarity, I would suggest the following: Notwithstanding the foregoing and notwithstanding any required threshold for launching a community IRP, no community IRP that challenges the result(s) of a supporting organization’s policy development process (PDP) may be launched without the support of the supporting organization that developed such PDP or, in the case of the result(s) of a PDP working group chartered by more than one supporting organization, without the support of such supporting organizations. In any event, this discussion of the "joint PDP" language may be out of scope for CWG-Stewardship. As such, this comment should be referred back to CCWG-Accountability for its review and consideration. Greg On Sun, Feb 7, 2016 at 10:12 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote: That would have done the trick but if the intent is to only cover SOs then using cross community WG may broaden the scope beyond supporting organisations. Regards Should we say ‘cross community WG’ instead of ‘joint PDP’? Chuck From: Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, February 06, 2016 1:39 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Grace Abuhamad; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] CCWG Update Thanks Chuck, in that case there may be need to remove the section referring to "joint PDP" in the document. I still have one more pending question on the "IRP subgroup" as I can't seem to figure out who those are, neither can I find a definition for such. Cheers! On 6 Feb 2016 3:04 p.m., "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote: Seun, I don’t think there is such a thing as a joint PDP but there are joint WGs. There is a cross community working group that has been deliberating for a couple years to develop recommendations for cross community working groups. I am not in the WG but I believe that they are leaning toward recommending the process that has been used in cross community WGs to date, i.e., that it is up to each supporting organization to decide whether they support any policy recommendations. Here’s a link to WG site: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active/cross-community Chuck From: Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, February 05, 2016 1:47 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org; Grace Abuhamad Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CCWG Update +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 2nd 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. Bernard 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
I am almost fine with that edited wording. The only issue is whether the rule applies to all WGs or only PDP WGs. The new language tends to support the broader application, but the beginning of the sentence is limited to the "result(s) of a supporting organization's policy development process (PDP)." In the GNSO, we have "PDP Working Groups" and "non-PDP Working Groups." I'm not sure if that applies to the ccNSO (or ASO). I'm also not sure if CCWGs are always "PDP Working Groups," always "non-PDP Working Groups" or can be either, depending on the CCWG in question. Greg On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 9:35 AM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
Here are some additional edits for consideration to the language you suggested Greg:
“*Notwithstanding the foregoing and notwithstanding any required threshold for launching a community IRP, no community IRP that challenges the result(s) of a supporting organization’s policy development process (PDP) may be launched without the support of the supporting organization that developed such PDPapproved policy recommendations from the PDP or, in the case of the result(s) of a PDPcross community working group (CCWG) chartered by more than one supporting organization, without the support of such the supporting organizations that approved the policy recommendations from that CCWG.*”
I don’t this this changes the intent but I believe it is more accurately worded. For one thing, SOs don’t develop PDPs, they develop policy recommendations using PDPs. And as already noted, there is no such thing as a cross community PDP. I think the edited wording above more accurately reflect what is intended, but I welcome additional edits.
Chuck
*From:* Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] *Sent:* Sunday, February 07, 2016 3:55 PM *To:* Seun Ojedeji *Cc:* Gomes, Chuck; cwg-stewardship@icann.org
*Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CCWG Update
The carve-out language is limited to discussion of PDPs. Not every WG is a PDP WG. Unless we want to expand this limitation, any revision needs to carry on this limitation. The reference to a "joint PDP" is specifically in the context of the results of a policy development process developed by two or more supporting organizations. Here's the paragraph under discussion:
*Notwithstanding the foregoing and notwithstanding any required threshold for launching a community IRP, no community IRP that challenges the result(s) of a supporting organization’s policy development process (PDP) may be launched without the support of the supporting organization that developed such PDP or, in the case of joint PDPs, without the support of the supporting organizations that developed such PDP.*
The language in the latter part is kind of clumsy. "Joint PDP" is an awkward shorthand for a PDP WG chartered by more than one SO -- not one where there underlying policy development process was jointly developed by multiple SOs (which doesn't exist). In turn, it refers to a challenge to the "results" of the PDP, not really to the PDP itself. For clarity, I would suggest the following:
*Notwithstanding the foregoing and notwithstanding any required threshold for launching a community IRP, no community IRP that challenges the result(s) of a supporting organization’s policy development process (PDP) may be launched without the support of the supporting organization that developed such PDP or, in the case of the result(s) of a PDP working group chartered by more than one supporting organization, without the support of such supporting organizations.*
In any event, this discussion of the "joint PDP" language may be out of scope for CWG-Stewardship. As such, this comment should be referred back to CCWG-Accountability for its review and consideration.
Greg
On Sun, Feb 7, 2016 at 10:12 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
That would have done the trick but if the intent is to only cover SOs then using cross community WG may broaden the scope beyond supporting organisations.
Regards
Should we say ‘cross community WG’ instead of ‘joint PDP’?
Chuck
*From:* Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com] *Sent:* Saturday, February 06, 2016 1:39 PM *To:* Gomes, Chuck *Cc:* Grace Abuhamad; cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* RE: [CWG-Stewardship] CCWG Update
Thanks Chuck, in that case there may be need to remove the section referring to "joint PDP" in the document.
I still have one more pending question on the "IRP subgroup" as I can't seem to figure out who those are, neither can I find a definition for such.
Cheers!
On 6 Feb 2016 3:04 p.m., "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
Seun,
I don’t think there is such a thing as a joint PDP but there are joint WGs. There is a cross community working group that has been deliberating for a couple years to develop recommendations for cross community working groups. I am not in the WG but I believe that they are leaning toward recommending the process that has been used in cross community WGs to date, i.e., that it is up to each supporting organization to decide whether they support any policy recommendations. Here’s a link to WG site: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active/cross-community
Chuck
*From:* Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com] *Sent:* Friday, February 05, 2016 1:47 PM *To:* Gomes, Chuck *Cc:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org; Grace Abuhamad *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CCWG Update
+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 2nd 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.
Bernard 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
Greg, The language at the beginning seems fine if only the GNSO is involved in a PDP. Like you, I cannot speak for the ccNSO. But there is no such thing that I am aware of as a cross community PDP so I tried to fix that. Chuck From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, February 08, 2016 10:49 AM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Seun Ojedeji; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CCWG Update I am almost fine with that edited wording. The only issue is whether the rule applies to all WGs or only PDP WGs. The new language tends to support the broader application, but the beginning of the sentence is limited to the "result(s) of a supporting organization's policy development process (PDP)." In the GNSO, we have "PDP Working Groups" and "non-PDP Working Groups." I'm not sure if that applies to the ccNSO (or ASO). I'm also not sure if CCWGs are always "PDP Working Groups," always "non-PDP Working Groups" or can be either, depending on the CCWG in question. Greg On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 9:35 AM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> wrote: Here are some additional edits for consideration to the language you suggested Greg: “Notwithstanding the foregoing and notwithstanding any required threshold for launching a community IRP, no community IRP that challenges the result(s) of a supporting organization’s policy development process (PDP) may be launched without the support of the supporting organization that developed such PDPapproved policy recommendations from the PDP or, in the case of the result(s) of a PDPcross community working group (CCWG) chartered by more than one supporting organization, without the support of such the supporting organizations that approved the policy recommendations from that CCWG.” I don’t this this changes the intent but I believe it is more accurately worded. For one thing, SOs don’t develop PDPs, they develop policy recommendations using PDPs. And as already noted, there is no such thing as a cross community PDP. I think the edited wording above more accurately reflect what is intended, but I welcome additional edits. Chuck From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>] Sent: Sunday, February 07, 2016 3:55 PM To: Seun Ojedeji Cc: Gomes, Chuck; cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CCWG Update The carve-out language is limited to discussion of PDPs. Not every WG is a PDP WG. Unless we want to expand this limitation, any revision needs to carry on this limitation. The reference to a "joint PDP" is specifically in the context of the results of a policy development process developed by two or more supporting organizations. Here's the paragraph under discussion: Notwithstanding the foregoing and notwithstanding any required threshold for launching a community IRP, no community IRP that challenges the result(s) of a supporting organization’s policy development process (PDP) may be launched without the support of the supporting organization that developed such PDP or, in the case of joint PDPs, without the support of the supporting organizations that developed such PDP. The language in the latter part is kind of clumsy. "Joint PDP" is an awkward shorthand for a PDP WG chartered by more than one SO -- not one where there underlying policy development process was jointly developed by multiple SOs (which doesn't exist). In turn, it refers to a challenge to the "results" of the PDP, not really to the PDP itself. For clarity, I would suggest the following: Notwithstanding the foregoing and notwithstanding any required threshold for launching a community IRP, no community IRP that challenges the result(s) of a supporting organization’s policy development process (PDP) may be launched without the support of the supporting organization that developed such PDP or, in the case of the result(s) of a PDP working group chartered by more than one supporting organization, without the support of such supporting organizations. In any event, this discussion of the "joint PDP" language may be out of scope for CWG-Stewardship. As such, this comment should be referred back to CCWG-Accountability for its review and consideration. Greg On Sun, Feb 7, 2016 at 10:12 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>> wrote: That would have done the trick but if the intent is to only cover SOs then using cross community WG may broaden the scope beyond supporting organisations. Regards Should we say ‘cross community WG’ instead of ‘joint PDP’? Chuck From: Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>] Sent: Saturday, February 06, 2016 1:39 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Grace Abuhamad; cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] CCWG Update Thanks Chuck, in that case there may be need to remove the section referring to "joint PDP" in the document. I still have one more pending question on the "IRP subgroup" as I can't seem to figure out who those are, neither can I find a definition for such. Cheers! On 6 Feb 2016 3:04 p.m., "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> wrote: Seun, I don’t think there is such a thing as a joint PDP but there are joint WGs. There is a cross community working group that has been deliberating for a couple years to develop recommendations for cross community working groups. I am not in the WG but I believe that they are leaning toward recommending the process that has been used in cross community WGs to date, i.e., that it is up to each supporting organization to decide whether they support any policy recommendations. Here’s a link to WG site: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active/cross-community Chuck From: Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>] Sent: Friday, February 05, 2016 1:47 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>; Grace Abuhamad Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CCWG Update +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<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> wrote: In the 2nd 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> [mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:acct-staff-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Bernard Turcotte <turcotte.bernard@gmail.com<mailto:turcotte.bernard@gmail.com>> Date: Thursday, February 4, 2016 at 2:45 PM To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>>, ACCT-Staff <acct-staff@icann.org<mailto: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. Bernard Turcotte ICANN Staff Support for CCWG _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Agree with that proposed text change Chuck... On 6 Feb 2016 05:47, "Seun Ojedeji" <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
+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 2nd 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.
Bernard 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
participants (5)
-
Cheryl Langdon-Orr -
Gomes, Chuck -
Grace Abuhamad -
Greg Shatan -
Seun Ojedeji