Preparing answers on Sidley draft Bylaws questions
Dear Donna, Chuck, and Avri As the leads of DT-C (CSC), DT-M (Escalation), and DT-N (Reviews), the Chairs has asked that you prepare responses to the Sidley Draft Bylaws¹ ³Notes to CWG² since these notes affected mainly the work developed by your design teams. Some questions are easier to answer than others: some questions may require input from the CWG-Stewardship (if, for example, the response could be considered policy), others may have dependencies on the CCWG-Accountability work. I have updated the draft framework since it¹s presentation on 2 December to fix page number references and remove the repeated ³note to CWG² at the beginning of each row. In reviewing this document, there are some items where ICANN may be able to provide information or assist with the response formulation. If you have specific questions for ICANN staff, please let us know. As Lise put in her note below, the primary issue for the 12 January call will be the DT-IPR work, but my assumption is that an update on the response work may be of interest on that call as well. Please let us (staff support) know if there is anything that you need to help you in completing this work. Best, Grace From: <cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Lise Fuhr <lise.fuhr@difo.dk> Date: Thursday, December 17, 2015 at 7:05 AM To: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Update on the last item from the CWG call 15.12.2015 Dear CWG, At our call on Tuesday we didn¹t have time to discuss two issues: Under 3. Implementation creation of PTI, and 4. Bylaws. Below is a short description of both issues. 3. Implementation sub bullet ³Creation of PTI² At our last CWG call (December 3rd) we considered Sidley¹s role in relation to the creation of PTI and the associated legal work (Co formation, bylaws, articles etc). The client committee discussed this together with Sidley on our call December 10th and, in combination with the direction received in the CWG call, we believe the following is an effective approach: · ICANN to hold the pen and undertake the first pass on the legal work (as part of its role in implementation). · But ICANN to approach the legal work on the implementation of PTI in stages. · In particular, it is important to seek agreement with CWG / Sidley on the key principles before starting the detail drafting phase. · Thereafter, it will be important for CWG / Sidley to review and agree the draft and final forms of the key legal documents · The CWG will need to see regular updates from ICANN as part of this process in order to ensure timely implementation. Action Staff is to advise ICANN to approach the implementation of PTI in stages. In particular, to seek agreement with CWG on the principles before starting the drafting phase. 4. ICANN Bylaws (relating to PTI): The client committee had a call on Thursday December 10th . We discussed with Sidley the request to simplify their draft of the bylaws. Sidley suggested at the call, that instead of simplifying Bylaws at the outset, the CWG could work on the questions previously posed by Sidley and then Sidley could most effectively recommend what needs to be in the Bylaws and what can be implemented as supplements e.g. as 'policies' to be included elsewhere. The co-chairs therefore propose to form a small group to manage dealing with the questions in the first instance in order to inform Sidley¹s restructuring of their draft. The group to be composed of the leads of DTs that most closely associated with the questions asked by Sidley. We suggest Chuck, Donna, Avri to be the members of this small group. Grace was to have shared the framework for answering the questions that was previously prepared by staff. However, it was held back while we discussed the best approach. You will receive these shortly. This means: · That Sidley are on stand-by in relation to the ICANN Bylaws work until the CWG has sorted out the questions asked by Sidley in the bylaws document. · Unless we hear any objections we will task Chuck, Avri and Donna to form some answers to be reviewed by the CWG. · Then CWG will get back to Sidley with the answers in order for Sidley to rework the bylaws. AOB Next call is the 12th of January at 16 UTC, where one of the issues will be the discussion of the IPR document drafted by the DT IPR. It is important that the CWG have a proper look at the IPR document, in particular the key questions / decision points raised in it before the next CWG meeting and ideally submit any comments by email before the next call. Happy holidays to all, Jonathan and Lise
Grace - Do you want us to insert our proposed input into the framework directly or submit it separately? Donna - I note that the two items for DT-M that need responses also involve CT-CSC, so I assume that you and I should collaborate on those. I know you are on vacation the rest of this month; should I assume that any collaboration we do will need to happen in January? Chuck From: Grace Abuhamad [mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org] Sent: Monday, December 21, 2015 1:54 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; Austin, Donna; Avri Doria Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Preparing answers on Sidley draft Bylaws questions Dear Donna, Chuck, and Avri As the leads of DT-C (CSC), DT-M (Escalation), and DT-N (Reviews), the Chairs has asked that you prepare responses to the Sidley Draft Bylaws' "Notes to CWG" since these notes affected mainly the work developed by your design teams. Some questions are easier to answer than others: some questions may require input from the CWG-Stewardship (if, for example, the response could be considered policy), others may have dependencies on the CCWG-Accountability work. I have updated the draft framework since it's presentation on 2 December to fix page number references and remove the repeated "note to CWG" at the beginning of each row. In reviewing this document, there are some items where ICANN may be able to provide information or assist with the response formulation. If you have specific questions for ICANN staff, please let us know. As Lise put in her note below, the primary issue for the 12 January call will be the DT-IPR work, but my assumption is that an update on the response work may be of interest on that call as well. Please let us (staff support) know if there is anything that you need to help you in completing this work. Best, Grace From: <cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Lise Fuhr <lise.fuhr@difo.dk> Date: Thursday, December 17, 2015 at 7:05 AM To: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Update on the last item from the CWG call 15.12.2015 Dear CWG, At our call on Tuesday we didn't have time to discuss two issues: Under 3. Implementation - creation of PTI, and 4. Bylaws. Below is a short description of both issues. 3. Implementation - sub bullet "Creation of PTI" At our last CWG call (December 3rd) we considered Sidley's role in relation to the creation of PTI and the associated legal work (Co formation, bylaws, articles etc). The client committee discussed this together with Sidley on our call December 10th and, in combination with the direction received in the CWG call, we believe the following is an effective approach: . ICANN to hold the pen and undertake the first pass on the legal work (as part of its role in implementation). . But . ICANN to approach the legal work on the implementation of PTI in stages. . In particular, it is important to seek agreement with CWG / Sidley on the key principles before starting the detail drafting phase. . Thereafter, it will be important for CWG / Sidley to review and agree the draft and final forms of the key legal documents . The CWG will need to see regular updates from ICANN as part of this process in order to ensure timely implementation. Action Staff is to advise ICANN to approach the implementation of PTI in stages. In particular, to seek agreement with CWG on the principles before starting the drafting phase. 4. ICANN Bylaws (relating to PTI): The client committee had a call on Thursday December 10th . We discussed with Sidley the request to simplify their draft of the bylaws. Sidley suggested at the call, that instead of simplifying Bylaws at the outset, the CWG could work on the questions previously posed by Sidley and then Sidley could most effectively recommend what needs to be in the Bylaws and what can be implemented as supplements e.g. as 'policies' to be included elsewhere. The co-chairs therefore propose to form a small group to manage dealing with the questions in the first instance in order to inform Sidley's restructuring of their draft. The group to be composed of the leads of DTs that most closely associated with the questions asked by Sidley. We suggest Chuck, Donna, Avri to be the members of this small group. Grace was to have shared the framework for answering the questions that was previously prepared by staff. However, it was held back while we discussed the best approach. You will receive these shortly. This means: . That Sidley are on stand-by in relation to the ICANN Bylaws work until the CWG has sorted out the questions asked by Sidley in the bylaws document. . Unless we hear any objections we will task Chuck, Avri and Donna to form some answers to be reviewed by the CWG. . Then CWG will get back to Sidley with the answers in order for Sidley to rework the bylaws. AOB Next call is the 12th of January at 16 UTC, where one of the issues will be the discussion of the IPR document drafted by the DT IPR. It is important that the CWG have a proper look at the IPR document, in particular the key questions / decision points raised in it before the next CWG meeting and ideally submit any comments by email before the next call. Happy holidays to all, Jonathan and Lise
Chuck, I am happy to do whatever is easiest for you. I can help with managing/merging documents, as long as there is a redline version for me to work from. Since a few questions may need some discussion or collaboration among DT leads, it may be helpful to bounce a few ideas off-list and then provide a proposed response. We can also help arrange a call in the new year if that is more efficient. From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> Date: Monday, December 21, 2015 at 1:26 PM To: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org>, "Austin, Donna" <Donna.Austin@neustar.biz>, Avri Doria <doriavr@gmail.com> Cc: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: RE: Preparing answers on Sidley draft Bylaws questions Grace Do you want us to insert our proposed input into the framework directly or submit it separately? Donna I note that the two items for DT-M that need responses also involve CT-CSC, so I assume that you and I should collaborate on those. I know you are on vacation the rest of this month; should I assume that any collaboration we do will need to happen in January? Chuck From: Grace Abuhamad [mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org] Sent: Monday, December 21, 2015 1:54 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; Austin, Donna; Avri Doria Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Preparing answers on Sidley draft Bylaws questions Dear Donna, Chuck, and Avri As the leads of DT-C (CSC), DT-M (Escalation), and DT-N (Reviews), the Chairs has asked that you prepare responses to the Sidley Draft Bylaws¹ ³Notes to CWG² since these notes affected mainly the work developed by your design teams. Some questions are easier to answer than others: some questions may require input from the CWG-Stewardship (if, for example, the response could be considered policy), others may have dependencies on the CCWG-Accountability work. I have updated the draft framework since it¹s presentation on 2 December to fix page number references and remove the repeated ³note to CWG² at the beginning of each row. In reviewing this document, there are some items where ICANN may be able to provide information or assist with the response formulation. If you have specific questions for ICANN staff, please let us know. As Lise put in her note below, the primary issue for the 12 January call will be the DT-IPR work, but my assumption is that an update on the response work may be of interest on that call as well. Please let us (staff support) know if there is anything that you need to help you in completing this work. Best, Grace From: <cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Lise Fuhr <lise.fuhr@difo.dk> Date: Thursday, December 17, 2015 at 7:05 AM To: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Update on the last item from the CWG call 15.12.2015 Dear CWG, At our call on Tuesday we didn¹t have time to discuss two issues: Under 3. Implementation creation of PTI, and 4. Bylaws. Below is a short description of both issues. 3. Implementation sub bullet ³Creation of PTI² At our last CWG call (December 3rd) we considered Sidley¹s role in relation to the creation of PTI and the associated legal work (Co formation, bylaws, articles etc). The client committee discussed this together with Sidley on our call December 10th and, in combination with the direction received in the CWG call, we believe the following is an effective approach: · ICANN to hold the pen and undertake the first pass on the legal work (as part of its role in implementation). · But ICANN to approach the legal work on the implementation of PTI in stages. · In particular, it is important to seek agreement with CWG / Sidley on the key principles before starting the detail drafting phase. · Thereafter, it will be important for CWG / Sidley to review and agree the draft and final forms of the key legal documents · The CWG will need to see regular updates from ICANN as part of this process in order to ensure timely implementation. Action Staff is to advise ICANN to approach the implementation of PTI in stages. In particular, to seek agreement with CWG on the principles before starting the drafting phase. 4. ICANN Bylaws (relating to PTI): The client committee had a call on Thursday December 10th . We discussed with Sidley the request to simplify their draft of the bylaws. Sidley suggested at the call, that instead of simplifying Bylaws at the outset, the CWG could work on the questions previously posed by Sidley and then Sidley could most effectively recommend what needs to be in the Bylaws and what can be implemented as supplements e.g. as 'policies' to be included elsewhere. The co-chairs therefore propose to form a small group to manage dealing with the questions in the first instance in order to inform Sidley¹s restructuring of their draft. The group to be composed of the leads of DTs that most closely associated with the questions asked by Sidley. We suggest Chuck, Donna, Avri to be the members of this small group. Grace was to have shared the framework for answering the questions that was previously prepared by staff. However, it was held back while we discussed the best approach. You will receive these shortly. This means: · That Sidley are on stand-by in relation to the ICANN Bylaws work until the CWG has sorted out the questions asked by Sidley in the bylaws document. · Unless we hear any objections we will task Chuck, Avri and Donna to form some answers to be reviewed by the CWG. · Then CWG will get back to Sidley with the answers in order for Sidley to rework the bylaws. AOB Next call is the 12th of January at 16 UTC, where one of the issues will be the discussion of the IPR document drafted by the DT IPR. It is important that the CWG have a proper look at the IPR document, in particular the key questions / decision points raised in it before the next CWG meeting and ideally submit any comments by email before the next call. Happy holidays to all, Jonathan and Lise
Thanks Grace. Chuck From: Grace Abuhamad [mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org] Sent: Monday, December 21, 2015 2:37 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; Austin, Donna; Avri Doria Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: Preparing answers on Sidley draft Bylaws questions Chuck, I am happy to do whatever is easiest for you. I can help with managing/merging documents, as long as there is a redline version for me to work from. Since a few questions may need some discussion or collaboration among DT leads, it may be helpful to bounce a few ideas off-list and then provide a proposed response. We can also help arrange a call in the new year if that is more efficient. From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> Date: Monday, December 21, 2015 at 1:26 PM To: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org>, "Austin, Donna" <Donna.Austin@neustar.biz>, Avri Doria <doriavr@gmail.com> Cc: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: RE: Preparing answers on Sidley draft Bylaws questions Grace - Do you want us to insert our proposed input into the framework directly or submit it separately? Donna - I note that the two items for DT-M that need responses also involve CT-CSC, so I assume that you and I should collaborate on those. I know you are on vacation the rest of this month; should I assume that any collaboration we do will need to happen in January? Chuck From: Grace Abuhamad [mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org] Sent: Monday, December 21, 2015 1:54 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; Austin, Donna; Avri Doria Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Preparing answers on Sidley draft Bylaws questions Dear Donna, Chuck, and Avri As the leads of DT-C (CSC), DT-M (Escalation), and DT-N (Reviews), the Chairs has asked that you prepare responses to the Sidley Draft Bylaws' "Notes to CWG" since these notes affected mainly the work developed by your design teams. Some questions are easier to answer than others: some questions may require input from the CWG-Stewardship (if, for example, the response could be considered policy), others may have dependencies on the CCWG-Accountability work. I have updated the draft framework since it's presentation on 2 December to fix page number references and remove the repeated "note to CWG" at the beginning of each row. In reviewing this document, there are some items where ICANN may be able to provide information or assist with the response formulation. If you have specific questions for ICANN staff, please let us know. As Lise put in her note below, the primary issue for the 12 January call will be the DT-IPR work, but my assumption is that an update on the response work may be of interest on that call as well. Please let us (staff support) know if there is anything that you need to help you in completing this work. Best, Grace From: <cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Lise Fuhr <lise.fuhr@difo.dk> Date: Thursday, December 17, 2015 at 7:05 AM To: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Update on the last item from the CWG call 15.12.2015 Dear CWG, At our call on Tuesday we didn't have time to discuss two issues: Under 3. Implementation - creation of PTI, and 4. Bylaws. Below is a short description of both issues. 3. Implementation - sub bullet "Creation of PTI" At our last CWG call (December 3rd) we considered Sidley's role in relation to the creation of PTI and the associated legal work (Co formation, bylaws, articles etc). The client committee discussed this together with Sidley on our call December 10th and, in combination with the direction received in the CWG call, we believe the following is an effective approach: . ICANN to hold the pen and undertake the first pass on the legal work (as part of its role in implementation). . But . ICANN to approach the legal work on the implementation of PTI in stages. . In particular, it is important to seek agreement with CWG / Sidley on the key principles before starting the detail drafting phase. . Thereafter, it will be important for CWG / Sidley to review and agree the draft and final forms of the key legal documents . The CWG will need to see regular updates from ICANN as part of this process in order to ensure timely implementation. Action Staff is to advise ICANN to approach the implementation of PTI in stages. In particular, to seek agreement with CWG on the principles before starting the drafting phase. 4. ICANN Bylaws (relating to PTI): The client committee had a call on Thursday December 10th . We discussed with Sidley the request to simplify their draft of the bylaws. Sidley suggested at the call, that instead of simplifying Bylaws at the outset, the CWG could work on the questions previously posed by Sidley and then Sidley could most effectively recommend what needs to be in the Bylaws and what can be implemented as supplements e.g. as 'policies' to be included elsewhere. The co-chairs therefore propose to form a small group to manage dealing with the questions in the first instance in order to inform Sidley's restructuring of their draft. The group to be composed of the leads of DTs that most closely associated with the questions asked by Sidley. We suggest Chuck, Donna, Avri to be the members of this small group. Grace was to have shared the framework for answering the questions that was previously prepared by staff. However, it was held back while we discussed the best approach. You will receive these shortly. This means: . That Sidley are on stand-by in relation to the ICANN Bylaws work until the CWG has sorted out the questions asked by Sidley in the bylaws document. . Unless we hear any objections we will task Chuck, Avri and Donna to form some answers to be reviewed by the CWG. . Then CWG will get back to Sidley with the answers in order for Sidley to rework the bylaws. AOB Next call is the 12th of January at 16 UTC, where one of the issues will be the discussion of the IPR document drafted by the DT IPR. It is important that the CWG have a proper look at the IPR document, in particular the key questions / decision points raised in it before the next CWG meeting and ideally submit any comments by email before the next call. Happy holidays to all, Jonathan and Lise
Hi, Works for me. Will take a first pass on the ones that apply to the DT I was involved in. avri On 21-Dec-15 14:46, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Thanks Grace.
Chuck
*From:*Grace Abuhamad [mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org] *Sent:* Monday, December 21, 2015 2:37 PM *To:* Gomes, Chuck; Austin, Donna; Avri Doria *Cc:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* Re: Preparing answers on Sidley draft Bylaws questions
Chuck, I am happy to do whatever is easiest for you. I can help with managing/merging documents, as long as there is a redline version for me to work from. Since a few questions may need some discussion or collaboration among DT leads, it may be helpful to bounce a few ideas off-list and then provide a proposed response. We can also help arrange a call in the new year if that is more efficient.
*From: *"Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com <mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> *Date: *Monday, December 21, 2015 at 1:26 PM *To: *Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org <mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org>>, "Austin, Donna" <Donna.Austin@neustar.biz <mailto:Donna.Austin@neustar.biz>>, Avri Doria <doriavr@gmail.com <mailto:doriavr@gmail.com>> *Cc: *"cwg-stewardship@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>> *Subject: *RE: Preparing answers on Sidley draft Bylaws questions
Grace – Do you want us to insert our proposed input into the framework directly or submit it separately?
Donna – I note that the two items for DT-M that need responses also involve CT-CSC, so I assume that you and I should collaborate on those. I know you are on vacation the rest of this month; should I assume that any collaboration we do will need to happen in January?
Chuck
*From:*Grace Abuhamad [mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org] *Sent:* Monday, December 21, 2015 1:54 PM *To:* Gomes, Chuck; Austin, Donna; Avri Doria *Cc:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> *Subject:* Preparing answers on Sidley draft Bylaws questions
Dear Donna, Chuck, and Avri
As the leads of DT-C (CSC), DT-M (Escalation), and DT-N (Reviews), the Chairs has asked that you prepare responses to the Sidley Draft Bylaws’ “Notes to CWG” since these notes affected mainly the work developed by your design teams. Some questions are easier to answer than others: some questions may require input from the CWG-Stewardship (if, for example, the response could be considered policy), others may have dependencies on the CCWG-Accountability work.
I have updated the draft framework since it’s presentation on 2 December to fix page number references and remove the repeated “note to CWG” at the beginning of each row. In reviewing this document, there are some items where ICANN may be able to provide information or assist with the response formulation. If you have specific questions for ICANN staff, please let us know.
As Lise put in her note below, the primary issue for the 12 January call will be the DT-IPR work, but my assumption is that an update on the response work may be of interest on that call as well. Please let us (staff support) know if there is anything that you need to help you in completing this work.
Best,
Grace
*From: *<cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Lise Fuhr <lise.fuhr@difo.dk <mailto:lise.fuhr@difo.dk>> *Date: *Thursday, December 17, 2015 at 7:05 AM *To: *"cwg-stewardship@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>> *Subject: *[CWG-Stewardship] Update on the last item from the CWG call 15.12.2015
Dear CWG,
At our call on Tuesday we didn’t have time to discuss two issues:
Under 3. Implementation – creation of PTI, and 4. Bylaws. Below is a short description of both issues.
3. Implementation – sub bullet “Creation of PTI”
At our last CWG call (December 3^rd ) we considered Sidley’s role in relation to the creation of PTI and the associated legal work (Co formation, bylaws, articles etc).
The client committee discussed this together with Sidley on our call December 10^th and, in combination with the direction received in the CWG call, we believe the following is an effective approach:
· ICANN to hold the pen and undertake the first pass on the legal work (as part of its role in implementation).
· But … ICANN to approach the legal work on the implementation of PTI in stages.
· In particular, it is important to seek agreement with CWG / Sidley on the key principles before starting the detail drafting phase.
· Thereafter, it will be important for CWG / Sidley to review and agree the draft and final forms of the key legal documents
· The CWG will need to see regular updates from ICANN as part of this process in order to ensure timely implementation.
*Action*Staff is to advise ICANN to approach the implementation of PTI in stages. In particular, to seek agreement with CWG on the principles before starting the drafting phase.
4. ICANN Bylaws (relating to PTI):
The client committee had a call on Thursday December 10^th . We discussed with Sidley the request to simplify their draft of the bylaws.
Sidley suggested at the call, that instead of simplifying Bylaws at the outset, the CWG could work on the questions previously posed by Sidley and then Sidley could most effectively recommend what needs to be in the Bylaws and what can be implemented as supplements e.g. as 'policies' to be included elsewhere.
The co-chairs therefore propose to form a small group to manage dealing with the questions in the first instance in order to inform Sidley’s restructuring of their draft. The group to be composed of the leads of DTs that most closely associated with the questions asked by Sidley. We suggest Chuck, Donna, Avri to be the members of this small group.
Grace was to have shared the framework for answering the questions that was previously prepared by staff. However, it was held back while we discussed the best approach. You will receive these shortly.
This means:
· That Sidley are on stand-by in relation to the ICANN Bylaws work until the CWG has sorted out the questions asked by Sidley in the bylaws document.
· Unless we hear any objections we will task Chuck, Avri and Donna to form some answers to be reviewed by the CWG.
· Then CWG will get back to Sidley with the answers in order for Sidley to rework the bylaws.
AOB
Next call is the 12^th of January at 16 UTC, where one of the issues will be the discussion of the IPR document drafted by the DT IPR. It is important that the CWG have a proper look at the IPR document, in particular the key questions / decision points raised in it before the next CWG meeting and ideally submit any comments by email before the next call.
Happy holidays to all,
Jonathan and Lise
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Yes please Chuck, let's pick this up in January. Sent from my iPhone On Dec 22, 2015, at 5:26 AM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> wrote: Grace – Do you want us to insert our proposed input into the framework directly or submit it separately? Donna – I note that the two items for DT-M that need responses also involve CT-CSC, so I assume that you and I should collaborate on those. I know you are on vacation the rest of this month; should I assume that any collaboration we do will need to happen in January? Chuck From: Grace Abuhamad [mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org] Sent: Monday, December 21, 2015 1:54 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; Austin, Donna; Avri Doria Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Preparing answers on Sidley draft Bylaws questions Dear Donna, Chuck, and Avri As the leads of DT-C (CSC), DT-M (Escalation), and DT-N (Reviews), the Chairs has asked that you prepare responses to the Sidley Draft Bylaws’ “Notes to CWG” since these notes affected mainly the work developed by your design teams. Some questions are easier to answer than others: some questions may require input from the CWG-Stewardship (if, for example, the response could be considered policy), others may have dependencies on the CCWG-Accountability work. I have updated the draft framework since it’s presentation on 2 December to fix page number references and remove the repeated “note to CWG” at the beginning of each row. In reviewing this document, there are some items where ICANN may be able to provide information or assist with the response formulation. If you have specific questions for ICANN staff, please let us know. As Lise put in her note below, the primary issue for the 12 January call will be the DT-IPR work, but my assumption is that an update on the response work may be of interest on that call as well. Please let us (staff support) know if there is anything that you need to help you in completing this work. Best, Grace From: <cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Lise Fuhr <lise.fuhr@difo.dk<mailto:lise.fuhr@difo.dk>> Date: Thursday, December 17, 2015 at 7:05 AM To: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Update on the last item from the CWG call 15.12.2015 Dear CWG, At our call on Tuesday we didn’t have time to discuss two issues: Under 3. Implementation – creation of PTI, and 4. Bylaws. Below is a short description of both issues. 3. Implementation – sub bullet “Creation of PTI” At our last CWG call (December 3rd) we considered Sidley’s role in relation to the creation of PTI and the associated legal work (Co formation, bylaws, articles etc). The client committee discussed this together with Sidley on our call December 10th and, in combination with the direction received in the CWG call, we believe the following is an effective approach: · ICANN to hold the pen and undertake the first pass on the legal work (as part of its role in implementation). · But … ICANN to approach the legal work on the implementation of PTI in stages. · In particular, it is important to seek agreement with CWG / Sidley on the key principles before starting the detail drafting phase. · Thereafter, it will be important for CWG / Sidley to review and agree the draft and final forms of the key legal documents · The CWG will need to see regular updates from ICANN as part of this process in order to ensure timely implementation. Action Staff is to advise ICANN to approach the implementation of PTI in stages. In particular, to seek agreement with CWG on the principles before starting the drafting phase. 4. ICANN Bylaws (relating to PTI): The client committee had a call on Thursday December 10th . We discussed with Sidley the request to simplify their draft of the bylaws. Sidley suggested at the call, that instead of simplifying Bylaws at the outset, the CWG could work on the questions previously posed by Sidley and then Sidley could most effectively recommend what needs to be in the Bylaws and what can be implemented as supplements e.g. as 'policies' to be included elsewhere. The co-chairs therefore propose to form a small group to manage dealing with the questions in the first instance in order to inform Sidley’s restructuring of their draft. The group to be composed of the leads of DTs that most closely associated with the questions asked by Sidley. We suggest Chuck, Donna, Avri to be the members of this small group. Grace was to have shared the framework for answering the questions that was previously prepared by staff. However, it was held back while we discussed the best approach. You will receive these shortly. This means: · That Sidley are on stand-by in relation to the ICANN Bylaws work until the CWG has sorted out the questions asked by Sidley in the bylaws document. · Unless we hear any objections we will task Chuck, Avri and Donna to form some answers to be reviewed by the CWG. · Then CWG will get back to Sidley with the answers in order for Sidley to rework the bylaws. AOB Next call is the 12th of January at 16 UTC, where one of the issues will be the discussion of the IPR document drafted by the DT IPR. It is important that the CWG have a proper look at the IPR document, in particular the key questions / decision points raised in it before the next CWG meeting and ideally submit any comments by email before the next call. Happy holidays to all, Jonathan and Lise
Can someone provide me the version of the updated version of the Sidley Draft Bylaws that Grace updated. I think the version I have is the original. Chuck From: Grace Abuhamad [mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org] Sent: Monday, December 21, 2015 1:54 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; Austin, Donna; Avri Doria Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Preparing answers on Sidley draft Bylaws questions Dear Donna, Chuck, and Avri As the leads of DT-C (CSC), DT-M (Escalation), and DT-N (Reviews), the Chairs has asked that you prepare responses to the Sidley Draft Bylaws' "Notes to CWG" since these notes affected mainly the work developed by your design teams. Some questions are easier to answer than others: some questions may require input from the CWG-Stewardship (if, for example, the response could be considered policy), others may have dependencies on the CCWG-Accountability work. I have updated the draft framework since it's presentation on 2 December to fix page number references and remove the repeated "note to CWG" at the beginning of each row. In reviewing this document, there are some items where ICANN may be able to provide information or assist with the response formulation. If you have specific questions for ICANN staff, please let us know. As Lise put in her note below, the primary issue for the 12 January call will be the DT-IPR work, but my assumption is that an update on the response work may be of interest on that call as well. Please let us (staff support) know if there is anything that you need to help you in completing this work. Best, Grace From: <cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Lise Fuhr <lise.fuhr@difo.dk> Date: Thursday, December 17, 2015 at 7:05 AM To: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Update on the last item from the CWG call 15.12.2015 Dear CWG, At our call on Tuesday we didn't have time to discuss two issues: Under 3. Implementation - creation of PTI, and 4. Bylaws. Below is a short description of both issues. 3. Implementation - sub bullet "Creation of PTI" At our last CWG call (December 3rd) we considered Sidley's role in relation to the creation of PTI and the associated legal work (Co formation, bylaws, articles etc). The client committee discussed this together with Sidley on our call December 10th and, in combination with the direction received in the CWG call, we believe the following is an effective approach: . ICANN to hold the pen and undertake the first pass on the legal work (as part of its role in implementation). . But . ICANN to approach the legal work on the implementation of PTI in stages. . In particular, it is important to seek agreement with CWG / Sidley on the key principles before starting the detail drafting phase. . Thereafter, it will be important for CWG / Sidley to review and agree the draft and final forms of the key legal documents . The CWG will need to see regular updates from ICANN as part of this process in order to ensure timely implementation. Action Staff is to advise ICANN to approach the implementation of PTI in stages. In particular, to seek agreement with CWG on the principles before starting the drafting phase. 4. ICANN Bylaws (relating to PTI): The client committee had a call on Thursday December 10th . We discussed with Sidley the request to simplify their draft of the bylaws. Sidley suggested at the call, that instead of simplifying Bylaws at the outset, the CWG could work on the questions previously posed by Sidley and then Sidley could most effectively recommend what needs to be in the Bylaws and what can be implemented as supplements e.g. as 'policies' to be included elsewhere. The co-chairs therefore propose to form a small group to manage dealing with the questions in the first instance in order to inform Sidley's restructuring of their draft. The group to be composed of the leads of DTs that most closely associated with the questions asked by Sidley. We suggest Chuck, Donna, Avri to be the members of this small group. Grace was to have shared the framework for answering the questions that was previously prepared by staff. However, it was held back while we discussed the best approach. You will receive these shortly. This means: . That Sidley are on stand-by in relation to the ICANN Bylaws work until the CWG has sorted out the questions asked by Sidley in the bylaws document. . Unless we hear any objections we will task Chuck, Avri and Donna to form some answers to be reviewed by the CWG. . Then CWG will get back to Sidley with the answers in order for Sidley to rework the bylaws. AOB Next call is the 12th of January at 16 UTC, where one of the issues will be the discussion of the IPR document drafted by the DT IPR. It is important that the CWG have a proper look at the IPR document, in particular the key questions / decision points raised in it before the next CWG meeting and ideally submit any comments by email before the next call. Happy holidays to all, Jonathan and Lise
Hello Chuck, The document you request can be found on the Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/7ArxAg Kind regards, Brenda From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2016 12:39 PM To: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org>; Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin@neustar.biz>; Avri Doria <doriavr@gmail.com>; Brenda Brewer <brenda.brewer@icann.org> Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: RE: Preparing answers on Sidley draft Bylaws questions Importance: High Can someone provide me the version of the updated version of the Sidley Draft Bylaws that Grace updated. I think the version I have is the original. Chuck From: Grace Abuhamad [mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org] Sent: Monday, December 21, 2015 1:54 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; Austin, Donna; Avri Doria Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Preparing answers on Sidley draft Bylaws questions Dear Donna, Chuck, and Avri As the leads of DT-C (CSC), DT-M (Escalation), and DT-N (Reviews), the Chairs has asked that you prepare responses to the Sidley Draft Bylaws' "Notes to CWG" since these notes affected mainly the work developed by your design teams. Some questions are easier to answer than others: some questions may require input from the CWG-Stewardship (if, for example, the response could be considered policy), others may have dependencies on the CCWG-Accountability work. I have updated the draft framework since it's presentation on 2 December to fix page number references and remove the repeated "note to CWG" at the beginning of each row. In reviewing this document, there are some items where ICANN may be able to provide information or assist with the response formulation. If you have specific questions for ICANN staff, please let us know. As Lise put in her note below, the primary issue for the 12 January call will be the DT-IPR work, but my assumption is that an update on the response work may be of interest on that call as well. Please let us (staff support) know if there is anything that you need to help you in completing this work. Best, Grace From: <cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> > on behalf of Lise Fuhr <lise.fuhr@difo.dk <mailto:lise.fuhr@difo.dk> > Date: Thursday, December 17, 2015 at 7:05 AM To: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> " <cwg-stewardship@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> > Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Update on the last item from the CWG call 15.12.2015 Dear CWG, At our call on Tuesday we didn't have time to discuss two issues: Under 3. Implementation - creation of PTI, and 4. Bylaws. Below is a short description of both issues. 3. Implementation - sub bullet "Creation of PTI" At our last CWG call (December 3rd) we considered Sidley's role in relation to the creation of PTI and the associated legal work (Co formation, bylaws, articles etc). The client committee discussed this together with Sidley on our call December 10th and, in combination with the direction received in the CWG call, we believe the following is an effective approach: . ICANN to hold the pen and undertake the first pass on the legal work (as part of its role in implementation). . But . ICANN to approach the legal work on the implementation of PTI in stages. . In particular, it is important to seek agreement with CWG / Sidley on the key principles before starting the detail drafting phase. . Thereafter, it will be important for CWG / Sidley to review and agree the draft and final forms of the key legal documents . The CWG will need to see regular updates from ICANN as part of this process in order to ensure timely implementation. Action Staff is to advise ICANN to approach the implementation of PTI in stages. In particular, to seek agreement with CWG on the principles before starting the drafting phase. 4. ICANN Bylaws (relating to PTI): The client committee had a call on Thursday December 10th . We discussed with Sidley the request to simplify their draft of the bylaws. Sidley suggested at the call, that instead of simplifying Bylaws at the outset, the CWG could work on the questions previously posed by Sidley and then Sidley could most effectively recommend what needs to be in the Bylaws and what can be implemented as supplements e.g. as 'policies' to be included elsewhere. The co-chairs therefore propose to form a small group to manage dealing with the questions in the first instance in order to inform Sidley's restructuring of their draft. The group to be composed of the leads of DTs that most closely associated with the questions asked by Sidley. We suggest Chuck, Donna, Avri to be the members of this small group. Grace was to have shared the framework for answering the questions that was previously prepared by staff. However, it was held back while we discussed the best approach. You will receive these shortly. This means: . That Sidley are on stand-by in relation to the ICANN Bylaws work until the CWG has sorted out the questions asked by Sidley in the bylaws document. . Unless we hear any objections we will task Chuck, Avri and Donna to form some answers to be reviewed by the CWG. . Then CWG will get back to Sidley with the answers in order for Sidley to rework the bylaws. AOB Next call is the 12th of January at 16 UTC, where one of the issues will be the discussion of the IPR document drafted by the DT IPR. It is important that the CWG have a proper look at the IPR document, in particular the key questions / decision points raised in it before the next CWG meeting and ideally submit any comments by email before the next call. Happy holidays to all, Jonathan and Lise
Brenda, I found the staff analysis at this link but not the draft bylaws framework document from Sidley. Chuck From: Brenda Brewer [mailto:brenda.brewer@icann.org] Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2016 3:34 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; Grace Abuhamad; Austin, Donna; Avri Doria Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: RE: Preparing answers on Sidley draft Bylaws questions Hello Chuck, The document you request can be found on the Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/7ArxAg Kind regards, Brenda From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2016 12:39 PM To: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org>; Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin@neustar.biz>; Avri Doria <doriavr@gmail.com>; Brenda Brewer <brenda.brewer@icann.org> Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: RE: Preparing answers on Sidley draft Bylaws questions Importance: High Can someone provide me the version of the updated version of the Sidley Draft Bylaws that Grace updated. I think the version I have is the original. Chuck From: Grace Abuhamad [mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org] Sent: Monday, December 21, 2015 1:54 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; Austin, Donna; Avri Doria Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Preparing answers on Sidley draft Bylaws questions Dear Donna, Chuck, and Avri As the leads of DT-C (CSC), DT-M (Escalation), and DT-N (Reviews), the Chairs has asked that you prepare responses to the Sidley Draft Bylaws' "Notes to CWG" since these notes affected mainly the work developed by your design teams. Some questions are easier to answer than others: some questions may require input from the CWG-Stewardship (if, for example, the response could be considered policy), others may have dependencies on the CCWG-Accountability work. I have updated the draft framework since it's presentation on 2 December to fix page number references and remove the repeated "note to CWG" at the beginning of each row. In reviewing this document, there are some items where ICANN may be able to provide information or assist with the response formulation. If you have specific questions for ICANN staff, please let us know. As Lise put in her note below, the primary issue for the 12 January call will be the DT-IPR work, but my assumption is that an update on the response work may be of interest on that call as well. Please let us (staff support) know if there is anything that you need to help you in completing this work. Best, Grace From: <cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Lise Fuhr <lise.fuhr@difo.dk> Date: Thursday, December 17, 2015 at 7:05 AM To: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Update on the last item from the CWG call 15.12.2015 Dear CWG, At our call on Tuesday we didn't have time to discuss two issues: Under 3. Implementation - creation of PTI, and 4. Bylaws. Below is a short description of both issues. 3. Implementation - sub bullet "Creation of PTI" At our last CWG call (December 3rd) we considered Sidley's role in relation to the creation of PTI and the associated legal work (Co formation, bylaws, articles etc). The client committee discussed this together with Sidley on our call December 10th and, in combination with the direction received in the CWG call, we believe the following is an effective approach: . ICANN to hold the pen and undertake the first pass on the legal work (as part of its role in implementation). . But . ICANN to approach the legal work on the implementation of PTI in stages. . In particular, it is important to seek agreement with CWG / Sidley on the key principles before starting the detail drafting phase. . Thereafter, it will be important for CWG / Sidley to review and agree the draft and final forms of the key legal documents . The CWG will need to see regular updates from ICANN as part of this process in order to ensure timely implementation. Action Staff is to advise ICANN to approach the implementation of PTI in stages. In particular, to seek agreement with CWG on the principles before starting the drafting phase. 4. ICANN Bylaws (relating to PTI): The client committee had a call on Thursday December 10th . We discussed with Sidley the request to simplify their draft of the bylaws. Sidley suggested at the call, that instead of simplifying Bylaws at the outset, the CWG could work on the questions previously posed by Sidley and then Sidley could most effectively recommend what needs to be in the Bylaws and what can be implemented as supplements e.g. as 'policies' to be included elsewhere. The co-chairs therefore propose to form a small group to manage dealing with the questions in the first instance in order to inform Sidley's restructuring of their draft. The group to be composed of the leads of DTs that most closely associated with the questions asked by Sidley. We suggest Chuck, Donna, Avri to be the members of this small group. Grace was to have shared the framework for answering the questions that was previously prepared by staff. However, it was held back while we discussed the best approach. You will receive these shortly. This means: . That Sidley are on stand-by in relation to the ICANN Bylaws work until the CWG has sorted out the questions asked by Sidley in the bylaws document. . Unless we hear any objections we will task Chuck, Avri and Donna to form some answers to be reviewed by the CWG. . Then CWG will get back to Sidley with the answers in order for Sidley to rework the bylaws. AOB Next call is the 12th of January at 16 UTC, where one of the issues will be the discussion of the IPR document drafted by the DT IPR. It is important that the CWG have a proper look at the IPR document, in particular the key questions / decision points raised in it before the next CWG meeting and ideally submit any comments by email before the next call. Happy holidays to all, Jonathan and Lise
Chuck, is the attached document what you are looking for? Best regards, Marika From: <cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Chuck Gomes <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> Date: Wednesday 6 January 2016 at 22:18 To: Brenda Brewer <brenda.brewer@icann.org<mailto:brenda.brewer@icann.org>>, Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org<mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org>>, "Austin, Donna" <Donna.Austin@neustar.biz<mailto:Donna.Austin@neustar.biz>>, Avri Doria <doriavr@gmail.com<mailto:doriavr@gmail.com>> Cc: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Preparing answers on Sidley draft Bylaws questions Brenda, I found the staff analysis at this link but not the draft bylaws framework document from Sidley. Chuck From: Brenda Brewer [mailto:brenda.brewer@icann.org] Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2016 3:34 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; Grace Abuhamad; Austin, Donna; Avri Doria Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: RE: Preparing answers on Sidley draft Bylaws questions Hello Chuck, The document you request can be found on the Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/7ArxAg Kind regards, Brenda From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2016 12:39 PM To: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org<mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org>>; Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin@neustar.biz<mailto:Donna.Austin@neustar.biz>>; Avri Doria <doriavr@gmail.com<mailto:doriavr@gmail.com>>; Brenda Brewer <brenda.brewer@icann.org<mailto:brenda.brewer@icann.org>> Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: RE: Preparing answers on Sidley draft Bylaws questions Importance: High Can someone provide me the version of the updated version of the Sidley Draft Bylaws that Grace updated. I think the version I have is the original. Chuck From: Grace Abuhamad [mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org] Sent: Monday, December 21, 2015 1:54 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; Austin, Donna; Avri Doria Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Preparing answers on Sidley draft Bylaws questions Dear Donna, Chuck, and Avri As the leads of DT-C (CSC), DT-M (Escalation), and DT-N (Reviews), the Chairs has asked that you prepare responses to the Sidley Draft Bylaws’ “Notes to CWG” since these notes affected mainly the work developed by your design teams. Some questions are easier to answer than others: some questions may require input from the CWG-Stewardship (if, for example, the response could be considered policy), others may have dependencies on the CCWG-Accountability work. I have updated the draft framework since it’s presentation on 2 December to fix page number references and remove the repeated “note to CWG” at the beginning of each row. In reviewing this document, there are some items where ICANN may be able to provide information or assist with the response formulation. If you have specific questions for ICANN staff, please let us know. As Lise put in her note below, the primary issue for the 12 January call will be the DT-IPR work, but my assumption is that an update on the response work may be of interest on that call as well. Please let us (staff support) know if there is anything that you need to help you in completing this work. Best, Grace From: <cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Lise Fuhr <lise.fuhr@difo.dk<mailto:lise.fuhr@difo.dk>> Date: Thursday, December 17, 2015 at 7:05 AM To: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Update on the last item from the CWG call 15.12.2015 Dear CWG, At our call on Tuesday we didn’t have time to discuss two issues: Under 3. Implementation – creation of PTI, and 4. Bylaws. Below is a short description of both issues. 3. Implementation – sub bullet “Creation of PTI” At our last CWG call (December 3rd) we considered Sidley’s role in relation to the creation of PTI and the associated legal work (Co formation, bylaws, articles etc). The client committee discussed this together with Sidley on our call December 10th and, in combination with the direction received in the CWG call, we believe the following is an effective approach: · ICANN to hold the pen and undertake the first pass on the legal work (as part of its role in implementation). · But … ICANN to approach the legal work on the implementation of PTI in stages. · In particular, it is important to seek agreement with CWG / Sidley on the key principles before starting the detail drafting phase. · Thereafter, it will be important for CWG / Sidley to review and agree the draft and final forms of the key legal documents · The CWG will need to see regular updates from ICANN as part of this process in order to ensure timely implementation. Action Staff is to advise ICANN to approach the implementation of PTI in stages. In particular, to seek agreement with CWG on the principles before starting the drafting phase. 4. ICANN Bylaws (relating to PTI): The client committee had a call on Thursday December 10th . We discussed with Sidley the request to simplify their draft of the bylaws. Sidley suggested at the call, that instead of simplifying Bylaws at the outset, the CWG could work on the questions previously posed by Sidley and then Sidley could most effectively recommend what needs to be in the Bylaws and what can be implemented as supplements e.g. as 'policies' to be included elsewhere. The co-chairs therefore propose to form a small group to manage dealing with the questions in the first instance in order to inform Sidley’s restructuring of their draft. The group to be composed of the leads of DTs that most closely associated with the questions asked by Sidley. We suggest Chuck, Donna, Avri to be the members of this small group. Grace was to have shared the framework for answering the questions that was previously prepared by staff. However, it was held back while we discussed the best approach. You will receive these shortly. This means: · That Sidley are on stand-by in relation to the ICANN Bylaws work until the CWG has sorted out the questions asked by Sidley in the bylaws document. · Unless we hear any objections we will task Chuck, Avri and Donna to form some answers to be reviewed by the CWG. · Then CWG will get back to Sidley with the answers in order for Sidley to rework the bylaws. AOB Next call is the 12th of January at 16 UTC, where one of the issues will be the discussion of the IPR document drafted by the DT IPR. It is important that the CWG have a proper look at the IPR document, in particular the key questions / decision points raised in it before the next CWG meeting and ideally submit any comments by email before the next call. Happy holidays to all, Jonathan and Lise
I have that version Marika. In Grace's message I understood her to say that she had revised November 6 framework: "I have updated the draft framework since it's presentation on 2 December to fix page number references and remove the repeated "note to CWG" at the beginning of each row." Where is the updated version? Regardless, it seems like the Bylaws framework prepared by Sidley should be on the wiki and I cannot find it. Chuck From: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings@icann.org] Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2016 4:30 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; Brenda Brewer; Grace Abuhamad; Austin, Donna; Avri Doria Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Preparing answers on Sidley draft Bylaws questions Chuck, is the attached document what you are looking for? Best regards, Marika From: <cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Chuck Gomes <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> Date: Wednesday 6 January 2016 at 22:18 To: Brenda Brewer <brenda.brewer@icann.org<mailto:brenda.brewer@icann.org>>, Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org<mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org>>, "Austin, Donna" <Donna.Austin@neustar.biz<mailto:Donna.Austin@neustar.biz>>, Avri Doria <doriavr@gmail.com<mailto:doriavr@gmail.com>> Cc: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Preparing answers on Sidley draft Bylaws questions Brenda, I found the staff analysis at this link but not the draft bylaws framework document from Sidley. Chuck From: Brenda Brewer [mailto:brenda.brewer@icann.org] Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2016 3:34 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; Grace Abuhamad; Austin, Donna; Avri Doria Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: RE: Preparing answers on Sidley draft Bylaws questions Hello Chuck, The document you request can be found on the Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/7ArxAg Kind regards, Brenda From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2016 12:39 PM To: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org<mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org>>; Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin@neustar.biz<mailto:Donna.Austin@neustar.biz>>; Avri Doria <doriavr@gmail.com<mailto:doriavr@gmail.com>>; Brenda Brewer <brenda.brewer@icann.org<mailto:brenda.brewer@icann.org>> Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: RE: Preparing answers on Sidley draft Bylaws questions Importance: High Can someone provide me the version of the updated version of the Sidley Draft Bylaws that Grace updated. I think the version I have is the original. Chuck From: Grace Abuhamad [mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org] Sent: Monday, December 21, 2015 1:54 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; Austin, Donna; Avri Doria Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Preparing answers on Sidley draft Bylaws questions Dear Donna, Chuck, and Avri As the leads of DT-C (CSC), DT-M (Escalation), and DT-N (Reviews), the Chairs has asked that you prepare responses to the Sidley Draft Bylaws' "Notes to CWG" since these notes affected mainly the work developed by your design teams. Some questions are easier to answer than others: some questions may require input from the CWG-Stewardship (if, for example, the response could be considered policy), others may have dependencies on the CCWG-Accountability work. I have updated the draft framework since it's presentation on 2 December to fix page number references and remove the repeated "note to CWG" at the beginning of each row. In reviewing this document, there are some items where ICANN may be able to provide information or assist with the response formulation. If you have specific questions for ICANN staff, please let us know. As Lise put in her note below, the primary issue for the 12 January call will be the DT-IPR work, but my assumption is that an update on the response work may be of interest on that call as well. Please let us (staff support) know if there is anything that you need to help you in completing this work. Best, Grace From: <cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Lise Fuhr <lise.fuhr@difo.dk<mailto:lise.fuhr@difo.dk>> Date: Thursday, December 17, 2015 at 7:05 AM To: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Update on the last item from the CWG call 15.12.2015 Dear CWG, At our call on Tuesday we didn't have time to discuss two issues: Under 3. Implementation - creation of PTI, and 4. Bylaws. Below is a short description of both issues. 3. Implementation - sub bullet "Creation of PTI" At our last CWG call (December 3rd) we considered Sidley's role in relation to the creation of PTI and the associated legal work (Co formation, bylaws, articles etc). The client committee discussed this together with Sidley on our call December 10th and, in combination with the direction received in the CWG call, we believe the following is an effective approach: * ICANN to hold the pen and undertake the first pass on the legal work (as part of its role in implementation). * But ... ICANN to approach the legal work on the implementation of PTI in stages. * In particular, it is important to seek agreement with CWG / Sidley on the key principles before starting the detail drafting phase. * Thereafter, it will be important for CWG / Sidley to review and agree the draft and final forms of the key legal documents * The CWG will need to see regular updates from ICANN as part of this process in order to ensure timely implementation. Action Staff is to advise ICANN to approach the implementation of PTI in stages. In particular, to seek agreement with CWG on the principles before starting the drafting phase. 4. ICANN Bylaws (relating to PTI): The client committee had a call on Thursday December 10th . We discussed with Sidley the request to simplify their draft of the bylaws. Sidley suggested at the call, that instead of simplifying Bylaws at the outset, the CWG could work on the questions previously posed by Sidley and then Sidley could most effectively recommend what needs to be in the Bylaws and what can be implemented as supplements e.g. as 'policies' to be included elsewhere. The co-chairs therefore propose to form a small group to manage dealing with the questions in the first instance in order to inform Sidley's restructuring of their draft. The group to be composed of the leads of DTs that most closely associated with the questions asked by Sidley. We suggest Chuck, Donna, Avri to be the members of this small group. Grace was to have shared the framework for answering the questions that was previously prepared by staff. However, it was held back while we discussed the best approach. You will receive these shortly. This means: * That Sidley are on stand-by in relation to the ICANN Bylaws work until the CWG has sorted out the questions asked by Sidley in the bylaws document. * Unless we hear any objections we will task Chuck, Avri and Donna to form some answers to be reviewed by the CWG. * Then CWG will get back to Sidley with the answers in order for Sidley to rework the bylaws. AOB Next call is the 12th of January at 16 UTC, where one of the issues will be the discussion of the IPR document drafted by the DT IPR. It is important that the CWG have a proper look at the IPR document, in particular the key questions / decision points raised in it before the next CWG meeting and ideally submit any comments by email before the next call. Happy holidays to all, Jonathan and Lise
Chuck, I confirmed with Grace that there is no other document. There may have been some confusion because Grace referred to ‘framework’ which is also the title used for the Sidley document, but she was referring to the staff analysis. Apologies for the confusion this may have created. Best regards, Marika From: Chuck Gomes <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> Date: Wednesday 6 January 2016 at 22:45 To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>>, Brenda Brewer <brenda.brewer@icann.org<mailto:brenda.brewer@icann.org>>, Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org<mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org>>, "Austin, Donna" <Donna.Austin@neustar.biz<mailto:Donna.Austin@neustar.biz>>, Avri Doria <doriavr@gmail.com<mailto:doriavr@gmail.com>> Cc: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] Preparing answers on Sidley draft Bylaws questions I have that version Marika. In Grace’s message I understood her to say that she had revised November 6 framework: “I have updated the draft framework since it’s presentation on 2 December to fix page number references and remove the repeated “note to CWG” at the beginning of each row.” Where is the updated version? Regardless, it seems like the Bylaws framework prepared by Sidley should be on the wiki and I cannot find it. Chuck From: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings@icann.org] Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2016 4:30 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; Brenda Brewer; Grace Abuhamad; Austin, Donna; Avri Doria Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Preparing answers on Sidley draft Bylaws questions Chuck, is the attached document what you are looking for? Best regards, Marika From: <cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Chuck Gomes <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> Date: Wednesday 6 January 2016 at 22:18 To: Brenda Brewer <brenda.brewer@icann.org<mailto:brenda.brewer@icann.org>>, Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org<mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org>>, "Austin, Donna" <Donna.Austin@neustar.biz<mailto:Donna.Austin@neustar.biz>>, Avri Doria <doriavr@gmail.com<mailto:doriavr@gmail.com>> Cc: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Preparing answers on Sidley draft Bylaws questions Brenda, I found the staff analysis at this link but not the draft bylaws framework document from Sidley. Chuck From: Brenda Brewer [mailto:brenda.brewer@icann.org] Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2016 3:34 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; Grace Abuhamad; Austin, Donna; Avri Doria Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: RE: Preparing answers on Sidley draft Bylaws questions Hello Chuck, The document you request can be found on the Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/7ArxAg Kind regards, Brenda From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2016 12:39 PM To: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org<mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org>>; Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin@neustar.biz<mailto:Donna.Austin@neustar.biz>>; Avri Doria <doriavr@gmail.com<mailto:doriavr@gmail.com>>; Brenda Brewer <brenda.brewer@icann.org<mailto:brenda.brewer@icann.org>> Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: RE: Preparing answers on Sidley draft Bylaws questions Importance: High Can someone provide me the version of the updated version of the Sidley Draft Bylaws that Grace updated. I think the version I have is the original. Chuck From: Grace Abuhamad [mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org] Sent: Monday, December 21, 2015 1:54 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; Austin, Donna; Avri Doria Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Preparing answers on Sidley draft Bylaws questions Dear Donna, Chuck, and Avri As the leads of DT-C (CSC), DT-M (Escalation), and DT-N (Reviews), the Chairs has asked that you prepare responses to the Sidley Draft Bylaws’ “Notes to CWG” since these notes affected mainly the work developed by your design teams. Some questions are easier to answer than others: some questions may require input from the CWG-Stewardship (if, for example, the response could be considered policy), others may have dependencies on the CCWG-Accountability work. I have updated the draft framework since it’s presentation on 2 December to fix page number references and remove the repeated “note to CWG” at the beginning of each row. In reviewing this document, there are some items where ICANN may be able to provide information or assist with the response formulation. If you have specific questions for ICANN staff, please let us know. As Lise put in her note below, the primary issue for the 12 January call will be the DT-IPR work, but my assumption is that an update on the response work may be of interest on that call as well. Please let us (staff support) know if there is anything that you need to help you in completing this work. Best, Grace From: <cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Lise Fuhr <lise.fuhr@difo.dk<mailto:lise.fuhr@difo.dk>> Date: Thursday, December 17, 2015 at 7:05 AM To: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Update on the last item from the CWG call 15.12.2015 Dear CWG, At our call on Tuesday we didn’t have time to discuss two issues: Under 3. Implementation – creation of PTI, and 4. Bylaws. Below is a short description of both issues. 3. Implementation – sub bullet “Creation of PTI” At our last CWG call (December 3rd) we considered Sidley’s role in relation to the creation of PTI and the associated legal work (Co formation, bylaws, articles etc). The client committee discussed this together with Sidley on our call December 10th and, in combination with the direction received in the CWG call, we believe the following is an effective approach: · ICANN to hold the pen and undertake the first pass on the legal work (as part of its role in implementation). · But … ICANN to approach the legal work on the implementation of PTI in stages. · In particular, it is important to seek agreement with CWG / Sidley on the key principles before starting the detail drafting phase. · Thereafter, it will be important for CWG / Sidley to review and agree the draft and final forms of the key legal documents · The CWG will need to see regular updates from ICANN as part of this process in order to ensure timely implementation. Action Staff is to advise ICANN to approach the implementation of PTI in stages. In particular, to seek agreement with CWG on the principles before starting the drafting phase. 4. ICANN Bylaws (relating to PTI): The client committee had a call on Thursday December 10th . We discussed with Sidley the request to simplify their draft of the bylaws. Sidley suggested at the call, that instead of simplifying Bylaws at the outset, the CWG could work on the questions previously posed by Sidley and then Sidley could most effectively recommend what needs to be in the Bylaws and what can be implemented as supplements e.g. as 'policies' to be included elsewhere. The co-chairs therefore propose to form a small group to manage dealing with the questions in the first instance in order to inform Sidley’s restructuring of their draft. The group to be composed of the leads of DTs that most closely associated with the questions asked by Sidley. We suggest Chuck, Donna, Avri to be the members of this small group. Grace was to have shared the framework for answering the questions that was previously prepared by staff. However, it was held back while we discussed the best approach. You will receive these shortly. This means: · That Sidley are on stand-by in relation to the ICANN Bylaws work until the CWG has sorted out the questions asked by Sidley in the bylaws document. · Unless we hear any objections we will task Chuck, Avri and Donna to form some answers to be reviewed by the CWG. · Then CWG will get back to Sidley with the answers in order for Sidley to rework the bylaws. AOB Next call is the 12th of January at 16 UTC, where one of the issues will be the discussion of the IPR document drafted by the DT IPR. It is important that the CWG have a proper look at the IPR document, in particular the key questions / decision points raised in it before the next CWG meeting and ideally submit any comments by email before the next call. Happy holidays to all, Jonathan and Lise
Thanks Marika. Chuck From: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings@icann.org] Sent: Thursday, January 07, 2016 2:41 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; Brenda Brewer; Grace Abuhamad; Austin, Donna; Avri Doria Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Preparing answers on Sidley draft Bylaws questions Chuck, I confirmed with Grace that there is no other document. There may have been some confusion because Grace referred to 'framework' which is also the title used for the Sidley document, but she was referring to the staff analysis. Apologies for the confusion this may have created. Best regards, Marika From: Chuck Gomes <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> Date: Wednesday 6 January 2016 at 22:45 To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>>, Brenda Brewer <brenda.brewer@icann.org<mailto:brenda.brewer@icann.org>>, Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org<mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org>>, "Austin, Donna" <Donna.Austin@neustar.biz<mailto:Donna.Austin@neustar.biz>>, Avri Doria <doriavr@gmail.com<mailto:doriavr@gmail.com>> Cc: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] Preparing answers on Sidley draft Bylaws questions I have that version Marika. In Grace's message I understood her to say that she had revised November 6 framework: "I have updated the draft framework since it's presentation on 2 December to fix page number references and remove the repeated "note to CWG" at the beginning of each row." Where is the updated version? Regardless, it seems like the Bylaws framework prepared by Sidley should be on the wiki and I cannot find it. Chuck From: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings@icann.org] Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2016 4:30 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; Brenda Brewer; Grace Abuhamad; Austin, Donna; Avri Doria Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Preparing answers on Sidley draft Bylaws questions Chuck, is the attached document what you are looking for? Best regards, Marika From: <cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Chuck Gomes <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> Date: Wednesday 6 January 2016 at 22:18 To: Brenda Brewer <brenda.brewer@icann.org<mailto:brenda.brewer@icann.org>>, Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org<mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org>>, "Austin, Donna" <Donna.Austin@neustar.biz<mailto:Donna.Austin@neustar.biz>>, Avri Doria <doriavr@gmail.com<mailto:doriavr@gmail.com>> Cc: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Preparing answers on Sidley draft Bylaws questions Brenda, I found the staff analysis at this link but not the draft bylaws framework document from Sidley. Chuck From: Brenda Brewer [mailto:brenda.brewer@icann.org] Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2016 3:34 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; Grace Abuhamad; Austin, Donna; Avri Doria Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: RE: Preparing answers on Sidley draft Bylaws questions Hello Chuck, The document you request can be found on the Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/7ArxAg Kind regards, Brenda From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2016 12:39 PM To: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org<mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org>>; Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin@neustar.biz<mailto:Donna.Austin@neustar.biz>>; Avri Doria <doriavr@gmail.com<mailto:doriavr@gmail.com>>; Brenda Brewer <brenda.brewer@icann.org<mailto:brenda.brewer@icann.org>> Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: RE: Preparing answers on Sidley draft Bylaws questions Importance: High Can someone provide me the version of the updated version of the Sidley Draft Bylaws that Grace updated. I think the version I have is the original. Chuck From: Grace Abuhamad [mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org] Sent: Monday, December 21, 2015 1:54 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; Austin, Donna; Avri Doria Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Preparing answers on Sidley draft Bylaws questions Dear Donna, Chuck, and Avri As the leads of DT-C (CSC), DT-M (Escalation), and DT-N (Reviews), the Chairs has asked that you prepare responses to the Sidley Draft Bylaws' "Notes to CWG" since these notes affected mainly the work developed by your design teams. Some questions are easier to answer than others: some questions may require input from the CWG-Stewardship (if, for example, the response could be considered policy), others may have dependencies on the CCWG-Accountability work. I have updated the draft framework since it's presentation on 2 December to fix page number references and remove the repeated "note to CWG" at the beginning of each row. In reviewing this document, there are some items where ICANN may be able to provide information or assist with the response formulation. If you have specific questions for ICANN staff, please let us know. As Lise put in her note below, the primary issue for the 12 January call will be the DT-IPR work, but my assumption is that an update on the response work may be of interest on that call as well. Please let us (staff support) know if there is anything that you need to help you in completing this work. Best, Grace From: <cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Lise Fuhr <lise.fuhr@difo.dk<mailto:lise.fuhr@difo.dk>> Date: Thursday, December 17, 2015 at 7:05 AM To: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Update on the last item from the CWG call 15.12.2015 Dear CWG, At our call on Tuesday we didn't have time to discuss two issues: Under 3. Implementation - creation of PTI, and 4. Bylaws. Below is a short description of both issues. 3. Implementation - sub bullet "Creation of PTI" At our last CWG call (December 3rd) we considered Sidley's role in relation to the creation of PTI and the associated legal work (Co formation, bylaws, articles etc). The client committee discussed this together with Sidley on our call December 10th and, in combination with the direction received in the CWG call, we believe the following is an effective approach: * ICANN to hold the pen and undertake the first pass on the legal work (as part of its role in implementation). * But ... ICANN to approach the legal work on the implementation of PTI in stages. * In particular, it is important to seek agreement with CWG / Sidley on the key principles before starting the detail drafting phase. * Thereafter, it will be important for CWG / Sidley to review and agree the draft and final forms of the key legal documents * The CWG will need to see regular updates from ICANN as part of this process in order to ensure timely implementation. Action Staff is to advise ICANN to approach the implementation of PTI in stages. In particular, to seek agreement with CWG on the principles before starting the drafting phase. 4. ICANN Bylaws (relating to PTI): The client committee had a call on Thursday December 10th . We discussed with Sidley the request to simplify their draft of the bylaws. Sidley suggested at the call, that instead of simplifying Bylaws at the outset, the CWG could work on the questions previously posed by Sidley and then Sidley could most effectively recommend what needs to be in the Bylaws and what can be implemented as supplements e.g. as 'policies' to be included elsewhere. The co-chairs therefore propose to form a small group to manage dealing with the questions in the first instance in order to inform Sidley's restructuring of their draft. The group to be composed of the leads of DTs that most closely associated with the questions asked by Sidley. We suggest Chuck, Donna, Avri to be the members of this small group. Grace was to have shared the framework for answering the questions that was previously prepared by staff. However, it was held back while we discussed the best approach. You will receive these shortly. This means: * That Sidley are on stand-by in relation to the ICANN Bylaws work until the CWG has sorted out the questions asked by Sidley in the bylaws document. * Unless we hear any objections we will task Chuck, Avri and Donna to form some answers to be reviewed by the CWG. * Then CWG will get back to Sidley with the answers in order for Sidley to rework the bylaws. AOB Next call is the 12th of January at 16 UTC, where one of the issues will be the discussion of the IPR document drafted by the DT IPR. It is important that the CWG have a proper look at the IPR document, in particular the key questions / decision points raised in it before the next CWG meeting and ideally submit any comments by email before the next call. Happy holidays to all, Jonathan and Lise
At our last call it was decided we would have on-line discussion in advance of our next call ... this list has been silent. We have a call scheduled for tomorrow - what is the plan? Best Paul
Paul, There has been a little bit of discussion on the answers to the Sidley questions regarding their draft Bylaws changes. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul M Kane - CWG Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2016 1:14 PM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG discussion At our last call it was decided we would have on-line discussion in advance of our next call ... this list has been silent. We have a call scheduled for tomorrow - what is the plan? Best Paul _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
For context some of this may be due to the incredible workload the CCWG is under at the moment and with the large amount of overlap people may have concentrated on that workload. -jg On 20/01/2016, 6:14 p.m., "cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Paul M Kane - CWG" <cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org on behalf of paul.kane-cwg@icb.co.uk> wrote:
At our last call it was decided we would have on-line discussion in advance of our next call ... this list has been silent.
We have a call scheduled for tomorrow - what is the plan?
Best
Paul
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
+1 and really beyond the 2 processes what you have said is one other reason why some drastic approach needs to be taken towards getting the community more engaged thereby raising new generation of volunteers as the current pool of volunteers is obviously not commensurate with the various tasks. If care is not taken (without being intentional), we will realise that number of community members is almost equivalent with that of the board which overall begs the question of diversity in community's view. This is sure not a CWG issue to address, but I thought it's worth noting that number of volunteers are reducing and should really be a thing of concern by chairs of different working groups and ICANN as a whole. Good that CWG has completed the major part of his task but we all know the task will be as good as undone without a workable ccwg outcome. Regards On 20 Jan 2016 20:25, "James Gannon" <james@cyberinvasion.net> wrote:
For context some of this may be due to the incredible workload the CCWG is under at the moment and with the large amount of overlap people may have concentrated on that workload.
-jg
On 20/01/2016, 6:14 p.m., "cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Paul M Kane - CWG" <cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org on behalf of paul.kane-cwg@icb.co.uk> wrote:
At our last call it was decided we would have on-line discussion in advance of our next call ... this list has been silent.
We have a call scheduled for tomorrow - what is the plan?
Best
Paul
_______________________________________________ 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
Seun, You accurately cite a problem that continues to exist in the ICANN world, one that we need to persist in solving. In the case of the GNSO, the GNSO Review recommendations from Westlake, the independent consultant, made several recommendations along this line. But I am not convinced that the number of the number of volunteers is decreasing. Take a look at the number of people who have volunteered for the Registration Data Services PDP WG that is getting ready to start: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=56986659 There are presently over 100 member volunteers and over 70 observer volunteers and a lot of them are new. I know that many will not be active and some will drop out over time, but that is an impressive start. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Seun Ojedeji Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2016 2:47 PM To: James Gannon Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG discussion +1 and really beyond the 2 processes what you have said is one other reason why some drastic approach needs to be taken towards getting the community more engaged thereby raising new generation of volunteers as the current pool of volunteers is obviously not commensurate with the various tasks. If care is not taken (without being intentional), we will realise that number of community members is almost equivalent with that of the board which overall begs the question of diversity in community's view. This is sure not a CWG issue to address, but I thought it's worth noting that number of volunteers are reducing and should really be a thing of concern by chairs of different working groups and ICANN as a whole. Good that CWG has completed the major part of his task but we all know the task will be as good as undone without a workable ccwg outcome. Regards On 20 Jan 2016 20:25, "James Gannon" <james@cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>> wrote: For context some of this may be due to the incredible workload the CCWG is under at the moment and with the large amount of overlap people may have concentrated on that workload. -jg On 20/01/2016, 6:14 p.m., "cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Paul M Kane - CWG" <cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of paul.kane-cwg@icb.co.uk<mailto:paul.kane-cwg@icb.co.uk>> wrote:
At our last call it was decided we would have on-line discussion in advance of our next call ... this list has been silent.
We have a call scheduled for tomorrow - what is the plan?
Best
Paul
_______________________________________________ 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
On 20 Jan 2016 23:13, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
Seun,
But I am not convinced that the number of the number of volunteers is
decreasing....... I know that many will not be active and some will drop out over time, but that is an impressive start.
SO: When I say "number of volunteers is decreasing", last part of your statement above was exactly my point. The CCWG/CWG does have remarkable list of names of volunteers as well but we can agree that just having names listed is not enough indicator for progress in building new set of volunteers. That said, the group you referred to is indeed starting up with an impressive list, the leadership of the group will have to pay good attention to their engagement methodologies with some level of consistencies to ensure that not much of the flock is lost after some time. Regards
Chuck
From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:
cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Seun Ojedeji
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2016 2:47 PM To: James Gannon Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG discussion
+1 and really beyond the 2 processes what you have said is one other reason why some drastic approach needs to be taken towards getting the community more engaged thereby raising new generation of volunteers as the current pool of volunteers is obviously not commensurate with the various tasks.
If care is not taken (without being intentional), we will realise that number of community members is almost equivalent with that of the board which overall begs the question of diversity in community's view.
This is sure not a CWG issue to address, but I thought it's worth noting that number of volunteers are reducing and should really be a thing of concern by chairs of different working groups and ICANN as a whole. Good that CWG has completed the major part of his task but we all know the task will be as good as undone without a workable ccwg outcome.
Regards
On 20 Jan 2016 20:25, "James Gannon" <james@cyberinvasion.net> wrote:
For context some of this may be due to the incredible workload the CCWG is under at the moment and with the large amount of overlap people may have concentrated on that workload.
-jg
On 20/01/2016, 6:14 p.m., "cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Paul M Kane - CWG" <cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org on behalf of paul.kane-cwg@icb.co.uk> wrote:
At our last call it was decided we would have on-line discussion in advance of our next call ... this list has been silent.
We have a call scheduled for tomorrow - what is the plan?
Best
Paul
_______________________________________________ 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
Chuck: Descriptives of 'volunteers' in the ICANN world are always situational. Checking the details of volunteers for the RDS PDP WG, you may see emerging a more nuanced explanation or narrative....giving further voice to Seun's worry. Most of the member volunteers here are folks with day jobs in the domain name business. A cursory reading of the situation in the observer volunteer list seems less so. -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 5:13 PM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
Seun,
You accurately cite a problem that continues to exist in the ICANN world, one that we need to persist in solving. In the case of the GNSO, the GNSO Review recommendations from Westlake, the independent consultant, made several recommendations along this line.
But I am not convinced that the number of the number of volunteers is decreasing. Take a look at the number of people who have volunteered for the Registration Data Services PDP WG that is getting ready to start: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=56986659 There are presently over 100 member volunteers and over 70 observer volunteers and a lot of them are new. I know that many will not be active and some will drop out over time, but that is an impressive start.
Chuck
*From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Seun Ojedeji *Sent:* Wednesday, January 20, 2016 2:47 PM *To:* James Gannon *Cc:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG discussion
+1 and really beyond the 2 processes what you have said is one other reason why some drastic approach needs to be taken towards getting the community more engaged thereby raising new generation of volunteers as the current pool of volunteers is obviously not commensurate with the various tasks.
If care is not taken (without being intentional), we will realise that number of community members is almost equivalent with that of the board which overall begs the question of diversity in community's view.
This is sure not a CWG issue to address, but I thought it's worth noting that number of volunteers are reducing and should really be a thing of concern by chairs of different working groups and ICANN as a whole. Good that CWG has completed the major part of his task but we all know the task will be as good as undone without a workable ccwg outcome.
Regards
On 20 Jan 2016 20:25, "James Gannon" <james@cyberinvasion.net> wrote:
For context some of this may be due to the incredible workload the CCWG is under at the moment and with the large amount of overlap people may have concentrated on that workload.
-jg
On 20/01/2016, 6:14 p.m., "cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Paul M Kane - CWG" <cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org on behalf of paul.kane-cwg@icb.co.uk> wrote:
At our last call it was decided we would have on-line discussion in advance of our next call ... this list has been silent.
We have a call scheduled for tomorrow - what is the plan?
Best
Paul
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Hi Paul, I just sent our review to the CCWG proposal to the CCWG group. There has been a three responses to the budget issues but none yet to the separation power. The three responses were not in contradiction to each other so we passed them on to the CCWG. Regarding the separation power - this will be having a second reading within the CCWG tomorrow and we will have a possibility to review this afterwards. We will also discuss the CCWG and our review at the call tomorrow. Best, Lise -----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of James Gannon Sent: 20 January 2016 20:24 To: Paul M Kane - CWG; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG discussion For context some of this may be due to the incredible workload the CCWG is under at the moment and with the large amount of overlap people may have concentrated on that workload. -jg On 20/01/2016, 6:14 p.m., "cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Paul M Kane - CWG" <cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org on behalf of paul.kane-cwg@icb.co.uk> wrote:
At our last call it was decided we would have on-line discussion in advance of our next call ... this list has been silent.
We have a call scheduled for tomorrow - what is the plan?
Best
Paul
_______________________________________________ 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
Hi I am not sure how this could be done but I think it important to assess on an ongoing basis how the CCWG is responding to the dependencies, the concerns raised by outside counsel in mid December and other points that may have been made with regards to the CCWG's evolving proposal. The reason I raise this is because of a concern on the CCWG lists related to whether or not and how the IRP might be the appropriate mechanism for addressing the requirement from the CWG for an appeals mechanism for IANA related matters. I think it important that we fully gauge the degree to which the work of the CCWG is satisfying CWG requirements, etc., during the various readings and prior to a final CCWG supplemental report being issued. Matthew On 20/01/2016 22:00, Lise Fuhr wrote:
Hi Paul,
I just sent our review to the CCWG proposal to the CCWG group. There has been a three responses to the budget issues but none yet to the separation power. The three responses were not in contradiction to each other so we passed them on to the CCWG. Regarding the separation power - this will be having a second reading within the CCWG tomorrow and we will have a possibility to review this afterwards.
We will also discuss the CCWG and our review at the call tomorrow.
Best, Lise -----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of James Gannon Sent: 20 January 2016 20:24 To: Paul M Kane - CWG; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG discussion
For context some of this may be due to the incredible workload the CCWG is under at the moment and with the large amount of overlap people may have concentrated on that workload.
-jg
On 20/01/2016, 6:14 p.m., "cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Paul M Kane - CWG" <cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org on behalf of paul.kane-cwg@icb.co.uk> wrote:
At our last call it was decided we would have on-line discussion in advance of our next call ... this list has been silent.
We have a call scheduled for tomorrow - what is the plan?
Best
Paul
_______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-- Matthew Shears | Director, Global Internet Policy & Human Rights Project Center for Democracy & Technology | cdt.org E: mshears@cdt.org | T: +44.771.247.2987 CDT's Annual Dinner, Tech Prom, is April 6, 2016. Don't miss out - register at cdt.org/annual-dinner. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
I believe the CWG normally make such check (also the lawyers does) periodically and I expect that the co-chairs do have some coordinations as well. Perhaps the exercise can be more prudent than it currently is, but again one needs to ensure to make such checks when a specific direction is envisaged/taken by the CCWG and not just based on comments by individuals. That said, if there are indications that CCWG does not seem to go inline with the CWG requirement, those who are in both groups could flag there here. As to the specific reference you made relating to IRP, considering that this has gone through second reading (?) Perhaps it's good to make a quick check. I personally don't see any inconsistency yet though. Regards On 21 Jan 2016 11:38, "Matthew Shears" <mshears@cdt.org> wrote:
Hi
I am not sure how this could be done but I think it important to assess on an ongoing basis how the CCWG is responding to the dependencies, the concerns raised by outside counsel in mid December and other points that may have been made with regards to the CCWG's evolving proposal. The reason I raise this is because of a concern on the CCWG lists related to whether or not and how the IRP might be the appropriate mechanism for addressing the requirement from the CWG for an appeals mechanism for IANA related matters. I think it important that we fully gauge the degree to which the work of the CCWG is satisfying CWG requirements, etc., during the various readings and prior to a final CCWG supplemental report being issued.
Matthew
On 20/01/2016 22:00, Lise Fuhr wrote:
Hi Paul,
I just sent our review to the CCWG proposal to the CCWG group. There has been a three responses to the budget issues but none yet to the separation power. The three responses were not in contradiction to each other so we passed them on to the CCWG. Regarding the separation power - this will be having a second reading within the CCWG tomorrow and we will have a possibility to review this afterwards.
We will also discuss the CCWG and our review at the call tomorrow.
Best, Lise -----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of James Gannon Sent: 20 January 2016 20:24 To: Paul M Kane - CWG; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG discussion
For context some of this may be due to the incredible workload the CCWG is under at the moment and with the large amount of overlap people may have concentrated on that workload.
-jg
On 20/01/2016, 6:14 p.m., "cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Paul M Kane - CWG" <cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org on behalf of paul.kane-cwg@icb.co.uk> wrote:
At our last call it was decided we would have on-line discussion in
advance of our next call ... this list has been silent.
We have a call scheduled for tomorrow - what is the plan?
Best
Paul
_______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
--
Matthew Shears | Director, Global Internet Policy & Human Rights Project Center for Democracy & Technology | cdt.org E: mshears@cdt.org | T: +44.771.247.2987
CDT's Annual Dinner, Tech Prom, is April 6, 2016. Don't miss out - register at cdt.org/annual-dinner.
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
This is what we said to the CCWG (in December 2015) in relation to the most recent (third) proposal on the subject of the adequacy or not of their work on the IRP: The Third Draft Proposal does not explicitly contemplate that the IRP would hear claims relating to actions (or inactions) of PTI. The CWG-Stewardship final transition proposal requires an independent review process for issues relating to the IANA names function. This is intended to be a process that is independent of ICANN and PTI, and that would address actions (or inactions) of PTI. Conclusion – As we noted in our comment letter to the Second Draft Proposal, the Third Draft Proposal does not explicitly address the CWG-Stewardship requirement that an independent review process be available for claims relating to actions or inactions of PTI. This requirement could be addressed in a number of ways. For example, a provision could be added to the ICANN Bylaws that would require ICANN to enforce its rights under the ICANN-PTI Contract/Statement of Work (SOW), with a failure by ICANN to address a material breach by PTI under the contract being grounds for an IRP process by the Empowered Community (after engagement and escalation). Another approach would be to expand and modify, as appropriate, the IRP process currently contemplated by the Third Draft Proposal to cover claims relating to actions or inactions of PTI, with the ICANN Bylaws and PTI governance documents expressly confirming that the IRP process is binding on PTI (which provisions would be Fundamental Bylaws that could not be amended without community approval). Regardless of approach, the CWG-Stewardship requires that this dependency be addressed in the final CCWG-Accountability proposal in order for the CWG-Stewardship to confirm that the conditions of the CWG-Stewardship final transition proposal have been adequately addressed. So, we (with the help of Sidley) provided for it to be dealt with in various ways. It seems to me that the key question we need to answer is, whether or not the current way being contemplated is consistent with what we required on the basis of our December communication? Thanks, Jonathan From: Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com] Sent: 21 January 2016 11:07 To: Matthew Shears <mshears@cdt.org> Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG discussion I believe the CWG normally make such check (also the lawyers does) periodically and I expect that the co-chairs do have some coordinations as well. Perhaps the exercise can be more prudent than it currently is, but again one needs to ensure to make such checks when a specific direction is envisaged/taken by the CCWG and not just based on comments by individuals. That said, if there are indications that CCWG does not seem to go inline with the CWG requirement, those who are in both groups could flag there here. As to the specific reference you made relating to IRP, considering that this has gone through second reading (?) Perhaps it's good to make a quick check. I personally don't see any inconsistency yet though. Regards On 21 Jan 2016 11:38, "Matthew Shears" <mshears@cdt.org <mailto:mshears@cdt.org> > wrote: Hi I am not sure how this could be done but I think it important to assess on an ongoing basis how the CCWG is responding to the dependencies, the concerns raised by outside counsel in mid December and other points that may have been made with regards to the CCWG's evolving proposal. The reason I raise this is because of a concern on the CCWG lists related to whether or not and how the IRP might be the appropriate mechanism for addressing the requirement from the CWG for an appeals mechanism for IANA related matters. I think it important that we fully gauge the degree to which the work of the CCWG is satisfying CWG requirements, etc., during the various readings and prior to a final CCWG supplemental report being issued. Matthew On 20/01/2016 22:00, Lise Fuhr wrote: Hi Paul, I just sent our review to the CCWG proposal to the CCWG group. There has been a three responses to the budget issues but none yet to the separation power. The three responses were not in contradiction to each other so we passed them on to the CCWG. Regarding the separation power - this will be having a second reading within the CCWG tomorrow and we will have a possibility to review this afterwards. We will also discuss the CCWG and our review at the call tomorrow. Best, Lise -----Original Message----- 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 James Gannon Sent: 20 January 2016 20:24 To: Paul M Kane - CWG; cwg-stewardship@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG discussion For context some of this may be due to the incredible workload the CCWG is under at the moment and with the large amount of overlap people may have concentrated on that workload. -jg On 20/01/2016, 6:14 p.m., "cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Paul M Kane - CWG" <cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of paul.kane-cwg@icb.co.uk <mailto:paul.kane-cwg@icb.co.uk> > wrote: At our last call it was decided we would have on-line discussion in advance of our next call ... this list has been silent. We have a call scheduled for tomorrow - what is the plan? Best Paul _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org <mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship -- Matthew Shears | Director, Global Internet Policy & Human Rights Project Center for Democracy & Technology | cdt.org <http://cdt.org> E: mshears@cdt.org <mailto:mshears@cdt.org> | T: +44.771.247.2987 <tel:%2B44.771.247.2987> CDT's Annual Dinner, Tech Prom, is April 6, 2016. Don't miss out - register at cdt.org/annual-dinner <http://cdt.org/annual-dinner> . --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org <mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
We provided for both the bylaws breach scenario and the direct breach enforcement in the supplement J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz> From: Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>> Organization: Afilias Reply-To: "jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>" <jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>> Date: Thursday, January 21, 2016 at 2:35 PM To: 'Seun Ojedeji' <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>>, Matthew Shears <mshears@cdt.org<mailto:mshears@cdt.org>> Cc: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG discussion This is what we said to the CCWG (in December 2015) in relation to the most recent (third) proposal on the subject of the adequacy or not of their work on the IRP: The Third Draft Proposal does not explicitly contemplate that the IRP would hear claims relating to actions (or inactions) of PTI. The CWG-Stewardship final transition proposal requires an independent review process for issues relating to the IANA names function. This is intended to be a process that is independent of ICANN and PTI, and that would address actions (or inactions) of PTI. Conclusion– As we noted in our comment letter to the Second Draft Proposal, the Third Draft Proposal does not explicitly address the CWG-Stewardship requirement that an independent review process be available for claims relating to actions or inactions of PTI. This requirement could be addressed in a number of ways. For example, a provision could be added to the ICANN Bylaws that would require ICANN to enforce its rights under the ICANN-PTI Contract/Statement of Work (SOW), with a failure by ICANN to address a material breach by PTI under the contract being grounds for an IRP process by the Empowered Community (after engagement and escalation). Another approach would be to expand and modify, as appropriate, the IRP process currently contemplated by the Third Draft Proposal to cover claims relating to actions or inactions of PTI, with the ICANN Bylaws and PTI governance documents expressly confirming that the IRP process is binding on PTI (which provisions would be Fundamental Bylaws that could not be amended without community approval). Regardless of approach, the CWG-Stewardship requires that this dependency be addressed in the final CCWG-Accountability proposal in order for the CWG-Stewardship to confirm that the conditions of the CWG-Stewardship final transition proposal have been adequately addressed. So, we (with the help of Sidley) provided for it to be dealt with in various ways. It seems to me that the key question we need to answer is, whether or not the current way being contemplated is consistent with what we required on the basis of our December communication? Thanks, Jonathan From: Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com] Sent: 21 January 2016 11:07 To: Matthew Shears <mshears@cdt.org<mailto:mshears@cdt.org>> Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG discussion I believe the CWG normally make such check (also the lawyers does) periodically and I expect that the co-chairs do have some coordinations as well. Perhaps the exercise can be more prudent than it currently is, but again one needs to ensure to make such checks when a specific direction is envisaged/taken by the CCWG and not just based on comments by individuals. That said, if there are indications that CCWG does not seem to go inline with the CWG requirement, those who are in both groups could flag there here. As to the specific reference you made relating to IRP, considering that this has gone through second reading (?) Perhaps it's good to make a quick check. I personally don't see any inconsistency yet though. Regards On 21 Jan 2016 11:38, "Matthew Shears" <mshears@cdt.org<mailto:mshears@cdt.org>> wrote: Hi I am not sure how this could be done but I think it important to assess on an ongoing basis how the CCWG is responding to the dependencies, the concerns raised by outside counsel in mid December and other points that may have been made with regards to the CCWG's evolving proposal. The reason I raise this is because of a concern on the CCWG lists related to whether or not and how the IRP might be the appropriate mechanism for addressing the requirement from the CWG for an appeals mechanism for IANA related matters. I think it important that we fully gauge the degree to which the work of the CCWG is satisfying CWG requirements, etc., during the various readings and prior to a final CCWG supplemental report being issued. Matthew On 20/01/2016 22:00, Lise Fuhr wrote: Hi Paul, I just sent our review to the CCWG proposal to the CCWG group. There has been a three responses to the budget issues but none yet to the separation power. The three responses were not in contradiction to each other so we passed them on to the CCWG. Regarding the separation power - this will be having a second reading within the CCWG tomorrow and we will have a possibility to review this afterwards. We will also discuss the CCWG and our review at the call tomorrow. Best, Lise -----Original Message----- 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 James Gannon Sent: 20 January 2016 20:24 To: Paul M Kane - CWG; cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG discussion For context some of this may be due to the incredible workload the CCWG is under at the moment and with the large amount of overlap people may have concentrated on that workload. -jg On 20/01/2016, 6:14 p.m., "cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Paul M Kane - CWG" <cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of paul.kane-cwg@icb.co.uk<mailto:paul.kane-cwg@icb.co.uk>> wrote: At our last call it was decided we would have on-line discussion in advance of our next call ... this list has been silent. We have a call scheduled for tomorrow - what is the plan? Best Paul _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_cwg-2Dstewardship&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=LzIJshTOzyrptiSj9godpGqgVdxCWVPSOOEGYNiWr1U&s=UZOSWOWylZn3IZiKSpuXHQdgYoGACqX9CLMi_kGYEbQ&e=> _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_cwg-2Dstewardship&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=LzIJshTOzyrptiSj9godpGqgVdxCWVPSOOEGYNiWr1U&s=UZOSWOWylZn3IZiKSpuXHQdgYoGACqX9CLMi_kGYEbQ&e=> _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_cwg-2Dstewardship&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=LzIJshTOzyrptiSj9godpGqgVdxCWVPSOOEGYNiWr1U&s=UZOSWOWylZn3IZiKSpuXHQdgYoGACqX9CLMi_kGYEbQ&e=> -- Matthew Shears | Director, Global Internet Policy & Human Rights Project Center for Democracy & Technology | cdt.org<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__cdt.org&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptN...> E: mshears@cdt.org<mailto:mshears@cdt.org> | T: +44.771.247.2987<tel:%2B44.771.247.2987> CDT's Annual Dinner, Tech Prom, is April 6, 2016. Don't miss out - register at cdt.org/annual-dinner<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__cdt.org_annual-2Ddinner&...>. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.avast.com_antivirus&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=LzIJshTOzyrptiSj9godpGqgVdxCWVPSOOEGYNiWr1U&s=iowuQvL9FlGPWLdsyJKxPx6jKM4P6sfCbXP8NKmF00A&e=> _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_cwg-2Dstewardship&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=LzIJshTOzyrptiSj9godpGqgVdxCWVPSOOEGYNiWr1U&s=UZOSWOWylZn3IZiKSpuXHQdgYoGACqX9CLMi_kGYEbQ&e=>
Sorry for the last email, hit “send” before its time. The Supplemental Final Proposal (issued 19 Feb 2016) provides that the IRP may hear and resolve claims that the PTI has violated its contract with ICANN and/or the CWG-Stewardship requirements for issues related to the IANA naming functions. (See Annex 7 page 1). In addition, the ICANN Bylaws will provide ICANN to enforce its rights under the PTI agreement. (Annex 7 page 4) Its failure to do so would constitute a violation of the Bylaws and thus also be subject to IRP review. J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz> From: Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>> Organization: Afilias Reply-To: "jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>" <jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>> Date: Thursday, January 21, 2016 at 2:35 PM To: 'Seun Ojedeji' <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>>, Matthew Shears <mshears@cdt.org<mailto:mshears@cdt.org>> Cc: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG discussion This is what we said to the CCWG (in December 2015) in relation to the most recent (third) proposal on the subject of the adequacy or not of their work on the IRP: The Third Draft Proposal does not explicitly contemplate that the IRP would hear claims relating to actions (or inactions) of PTI. The CWG-Stewardship final transition proposal requires an independent review process for issues relating to the IANA names function. This is intended to be a process that is independent of ICANN and PTI, and that would address actions (or inactions) of PTI. Conclusion– As we noted in our comment letter to the Second Draft Proposal, the Third Draft Proposal does not explicitly address the CWG-Stewardship requirement that an independent review process be available for claims relating to actions or inactions of PTI. This requirement could be addressed in a number of ways. For example, a provision could be added to the ICANN Bylaws that would require ICANN to enforce its rights under the ICANN-PTI Contract/Statement of Work (SOW), with a failure by ICANN to address a material breach by PTI under the contract being grounds for an IRP process by the Empowered Community (after engagement and escalation). Another approach would be to expand and modify, as appropriate, the IRP process currently contemplated by the Third Draft Proposal to cover claims relating to actions or inactions of PTI, with the ICANN Bylaws and PTI governance documents expressly confirming that the IRP process is binding on PTI (which provisions would be Fundamental Bylaws that could not be amended without community approval). Regardless of approach, the CWG-Stewardship requires that this dependency be addressed in the final CCWG-Accountability proposal in order for the CWG-Stewardship to confirm that the conditions of the CWG-Stewardship final transition proposal have been adequately addressed. So, we (with the help of Sidley) provided for it to be dealt with in various ways. It seems to me that the key question we need to answer is, whether or not the current way being contemplated is consistent with what we required on the basis of our December communication? Thanks, Jonathan From: Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com] Sent: 21 January 2016 11:07 To: Matthew Shears <mshears@cdt.org<mailto:mshears@cdt.org>> Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG discussion I believe the CWG normally make such check (also the lawyers does) periodically and I expect that the co-chairs do have some coordinations as well. Perhaps the exercise can be more prudent than it currently is, but again one needs to ensure to make such checks when a specific direction is envisaged/taken by the CCWG and not just based on comments by individuals. That said, if there are indications that CCWG does not seem to go inline with the CWG requirement, those who are in both groups could flag there here. As to the specific reference you made relating to IRP, considering that this has gone through second reading (?) Perhaps it's good to make a quick check. I personally don't see any inconsistency yet though. Regards On 21 Jan 2016 11:38, "Matthew Shears" <mshears@cdt.org<mailto:mshears@cdt.org>> wrote: Hi I am not sure how this could be done but I think it important to assess on an ongoing basis how the CCWG is responding to the dependencies, the concerns raised by outside counsel in mid December and other points that may have been made with regards to the CCWG's evolving proposal. The reason I raise this is because of a concern on the CCWG lists related to whether or not and how the IRP might be the appropriate mechanism for addressing the requirement from the CWG for an appeals mechanism for IANA related matters. I think it important that we fully gauge the degree to which the work of the CCWG is satisfying CWG requirements, etc., during the various readings and prior to a final CCWG supplemental report being issued. Matthew On 20/01/2016 22:00, Lise Fuhr wrote: Hi Paul, I just sent our review to the CCWG proposal to the CCWG group. There has been a three responses to the budget issues but none yet to the separation power. The three responses were not in contradiction to each other so we passed them on to the CCWG. Regarding the separation power - this will be having a second reading within the CCWG tomorrow and we will have a possibility to review this afterwards. We will also discuss the CCWG and our review at the call tomorrow. Best, Lise -----Original Message----- 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 James Gannon Sent: 20 January 2016 20:24 To: Paul M Kane - CWG; cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG discussion For context some of this may be due to the incredible workload the CCWG is under at the moment and with the large amount of overlap people may have concentrated on that workload. -jg On 20/01/2016, 6:14 p.m., "cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Paul M Kane - CWG" <cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of paul.kane-cwg@icb.co.uk<mailto:paul.kane-cwg@icb.co.uk>> wrote: At our last call it was decided we would have on-line discussion in advance of our next call ... this list has been silent. We have a call scheduled for tomorrow - what is the plan? Best Paul _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_cwg-2Dstewardship&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=LzIJshTOzyrptiSj9godpGqgVdxCWVPSOOEGYNiWr1U&s=UZOSWOWylZn3IZiKSpuXHQdgYoGACqX9CLMi_kGYEbQ&e=> _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_cwg-2Dstewardship&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=LzIJshTOzyrptiSj9godpGqgVdxCWVPSOOEGYNiWr1U&s=UZOSWOWylZn3IZiKSpuXHQdgYoGACqX9CLMi_kGYEbQ&e=> _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_cwg-2Dstewardship&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=LzIJshTOzyrptiSj9godpGqgVdxCWVPSOOEGYNiWr1U&s=UZOSWOWylZn3IZiKSpuXHQdgYoGACqX9CLMi_kGYEbQ&e=> -- Matthew Shears | Director, Global Internet Policy & Human Rights Project Center for Democracy & Technology | cdt.org<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__cdt.org&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptN...> E: mshears@cdt.org<mailto:mshears@cdt.org> | T: +44.771.247.2987<tel:%2B44.771.247.2987> CDT's Annual Dinner, Tech Prom, is April 6, 2016. Don't miss out - register at cdt.org/annual-dinner<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__cdt.org_annual-2Ddinner&...>. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.avast.com_antivirus&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=LzIJshTOzyrptiSj9godpGqgVdxCWVPSOOEGYNiWr1U&s=iowuQvL9FlGPWLdsyJKxPx6jKM4P6sfCbXP8NKmF00A&e=> _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_cwg-2Dstewardship&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=LzIJshTOzyrptiSj9godpGqgVdxCWVPSOOEGYNiWr1U&s=UZOSWOWylZn3IZiKSpuXHQdgYoGACqX9CLMi_kGYEbQ&e=>
I am told there has been quite some discussion on the Stewardship list - but my mail box is empty - nothing new since Thursday 21 Jan 2016 .... As discussed last week on our call, I'd like all members of the CWG to have the opportunity to review the latest draft but I still have NOT seen the latest draft document..... again nothing on the Stewardship mailing list. (semi-checking my ICANN mailing list account is still active) :-) Best Paul
Hi Paul, Good news: your account is still active and your message posted to the list. There have been 42 messages posted to this list since the 21st of January. You can view the archive here: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/2016-January/date.html#4618. I have checked and double-checked, and your email is still on the list of subscribers as always. I have added your other email to this list as well to make sure you receive the messages. There may be an issue with messages not being accepted on your end, but I can confirm that we have not tinkered with any settings on the admin side. Let me know if there is anything else I can assist with, Grace On 1/27/16, 4:47 PM, "cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Paul M Kane - CWG" <cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org on behalf of paul.kane-cwg@icb.co.uk> wrote:
I am told there has been quite some discussion on the Stewardship list - but my mail box is empty - nothing new since Thursday 21 Jan 2016 ....
As discussed last week on our call, I'd like all members of the CWG to have the opportunity to review the latest draft but I still have NOT seen the latest draft document..... again nothing on the Stewardship mailing list.
(semi-checking my ICANN mailing list account is still active) :-)
Best
Paul
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Paul, You should probably have our staff support look into the mailing list issue (and you might check your spam or clutter folders or other places where wayward emails go). In the meantime, you can catch up on the list by going to the mailing list archive at http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/. It looks like there have been about 40 emails since 21 Jan (albeit on only 3-4 threads, and 90% on the thread entitled "[CWG-Stewardship] CCWG-ACCT Request for Guidance on PTI - IRP - Please respond by 23h59 UTC Monday 25 January 2016"). The most recent email on the list is indeed the one you just sent (at least, until I send this one). Greg On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 4:47 PM, Paul M Kane - CWG <paul.kane-cwg@icb.co.uk> wrote:
I am told there has been quite some discussion on the Stewardship list - but my mail box is empty - nothing new since Thursday 21 Jan 2016 ....
As discussed last week on our call, I'd like all members of the CWG to have the opportunity to review the latest draft but I still have NOT seen the latest draft document..... again nothing on the Stewardship mailing list.
(semi-checking my ICANN mailing list account is still active) :-)
Best
Paul
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Thanks Grace and Greg I have just received the last two emails. (22-07 and 22-08 UTC). I'll look forward to the discussion. Grace - if you could send me the (final) document for review that would be great..... I will try and review at the week-end Best Paul Quoting Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>:
Paul,
You should probably have our staff support look into the mailing list issue (and you might check your spam or clutter folders or other places where wayward emails go). In the meantime, you can catch up on the list by going to the mailing list archive at http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/.
It looks like there have been about 40 emails since 21 Jan (albeit on only 3-4 threads, and 90% on the thread entitled "[CWG-Stewardship] CCWG-ACCT Request for Guidance on PTI - IRP - Please respond by 23h59 UTC Monday 25 January 2016"). The most recent email on the list is indeed the one you just sent (at least, until I send this one).
Greg
On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 4:47 PM, Paul M Kane - CWG <paul.kane-cwg@icb.co.uk> wrote:
I am told there has been quite some discussion on the Stewardship list - but my mail box is empty - nothing new since Thursday 21 Jan 2016 ....
As discussed last week on our call, I'd like all members of the CWG to have the opportunity to review the latest draft but I still have NOT seen the latest draft document..... again nothing on the Stewardship mailing list.
(semi-checking my ICANN mailing list account is still active) :-)
Best
Paul
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Hi Paul, Which document are you referring to? There are no final documents within the CWG-Stewardship at this stage. I have sent the Bylaws document for feedback on draft responses. I¹ve attached these since we could use your insight there. Chuck worked with the CCWG folks to finalize their section on the IANA budget. This item is now considered closed in the CCWG. If you would like to read the outcome of their work, please see: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/2016-January/004655.html>. Grace On 1/27/16, 5:12 PM, "cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Paul M Kane - CWG" <cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org on behalf of paul.kane-cwg@icb.co.uk> wrote:
Thanks Grace and Greg
I have just received the last two emails. (22-07 and 22-08 UTC).
I'll look forward to the discussion.
Grace - if you could send me the (final) document for review that would be great..... I will try and review at the week-end
Best
Paul
Quoting Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>:
Paul,
You should probably have our staff support look into the mailing list issue (and you might check your spam or clutter folders or other places where wayward emails go). In the meantime, you can catch up on the list by going to the mailing list archive at http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/.
It looks like there have been about 40 emails since 21 Jan (albeit on only 3-4 threads, and 90% on the thread entitled "[CWG-Stewardship] CCWG-ACCT Request for Guidance on PTI - IRP - Please respond by 23h59 UTC Monday 25 January 2016"). The most recent email on the list is indeed the one you just sent (at least, until I send this one).
Greg
On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 4:47 PM, Paul M Kane - CWG <paul.kane-cwg@icb.co.uk> wrote:
I am told there has been quite some discussion on the Stewardship list - but my mail box is empty - nothing new since Thursday 21 Jan 2016 ....
As discussed last week on our call, I'd like all members of the CWG to have the opportunity to review the latest draft but I still have NOT seen the latest draft document..... again nothing on the Stewardship mailing list.
(semi-checking my ICANN mailing list account is still active) :-)
Best
Paul
_______________________________________________ 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
Paul M Kane - CWG writes:
I am told there has been quite some discussion on the Stewardship list - but my mail box is empty - nothing new since Thursday 21 Jan 2016 ....
Did you check the archives? <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/2016-January/thread.html#start> jaap
participants (16)
-
Austin, Donna -
Avri doria -
Brenda Brewer -
Burr, Becky -
Carlton Samuels -
Gomes, Chuck -
Grace Abuhamad -
Greg Shatan -
Jaap Akkerhuis -
James Gannon -
Jonathan Robinson -
Lise Fuhr -
Marika Konings -
Matthew Shears -
Paul M Kane - CWG -
Seun Ojedeji