Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Notes, Recordings, Transcript CWG IANA Bylaws Review Meeting | 11 April 2016
Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 11 Apr 2016 6:39 p.m., "Brenda Brewer" <brenda.brewer@icann.org> wrote:
·
Question 9: change to reflect confirmation of the question: CSC liaison is intended to come from RrSG or NCSG. Only restriction is
that this not be from a gTLD registry.
SO: That there is still a "or" between NCSG and RrSG makes me wonder what this mean in practice; that NCSG will not appoint if RrSG appointed a liaison first or the other way round? Secondly, what's the use of a liaison since the DUO are components of the GNSO. I have not gone to the proposal to check if this is inline but it seem like an overkill to me.
· Question 10: no change.
· Question 11: the "it may be appropriate" section can be placed in the Charter. It is not for inclusion in Bylaws.
· Question 12: no change.
· Question 13: We can keep the clarification and refer to the original text as inclusive of the broader community of 'consumers'.
SO: sounds more broadly inclusive and clear than the alternative. Or an
alternative: direct customers of the naming services" (text used for CSC). That text is as follows: "Any necessary additions to the
IANA SOW to account for the needs of the consumers of the IANA naming functions [and/or] the ICANN community at large".
Question 22: no support for defining a simple majority. There is support for use of consensus. The CWG-Stewardship
proposal states that the SCWG would follow the stndards established by the CCWG-Principles.
SO: Is this referring to the current CCWG framework open for PC or principles that will be set in the charter of each CCWG? If the former then fine(although I would note that having such mindset early would have been a good thing), however if it's the later I guess the high-level principles of the SCWG is indeed what we are discussing and I don't think it's something to be determined later. Regards
· Question 24: no change
· Other comments: Sharon has one question regaring 18.4a. Will reach out to Avri and Matt to clarify.
· Paul Kane noted concerns with consistency in Bylaws language and focus on gTLDs.
Action (Sharon): Reach out to Avri and Matt with Client Committee in copy about language in 18.4a.
2. AOB
Next meeting (Thursday 14 April at 16:00 UTC). Group may not need a meeting on Thursday. The implementation update and other items
may be able to be provided via email.
Action (Chairs): Due to time constraints on this call, Chairs will discuss and revert back to group with next steps.
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Dear Co-Chairs, Will be good to hear response to my questions (bearing in mind the update provided by Grace). Regards PS: Anyone who has a clear understanding may help as well. Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 11 Apr 2016 19:55, "Seun Ojedeji" <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 11 Apr 2016 6:39 p.m., "Brenda Brewer" <brenda.brewer@icann.org> wrote:
·
Question 9: change to reflect confirmation of the question: CSC liaison is intended to come from RrSG or NCSG. Only restriction is
that this not be from a gTLD registry.
SO: That there is still a "or" between NCSG and RrSG makes me wonder what this mean in practice; that NCSG will not appoint if RrSG appointed a liaison first or the other way round?
Secondly, what's the use of a liaison since the DUO are components of the GNSO. I have not gone to the proposal to check if this is inline but it seem like an overkill to me.
· Question 10: no change.
· Question 11: the "it may be appropriate" section can be placed in the Charter. It is not for inclusion in Bylaws.
· Question 12: no change.
· Question 13: We can keep the clarification and refer to the original text as inclusive of the broader community of 'consumers'.
SO: sounds more broadly inclusive and clear than the alternative.
Or an
alternative: direct customers of the naming services" (text used for CSC). That text is as follows: "Any necessary additions to the
IANA SOW to account for the needs of the consumers of the IANA naming functions [and/or] the ICANN community at large".
Question 22: no support for defining a simple majority. There is support for use of consensus. The CWG-Stewardship
proposal states that the SCWG would follow the stndards established by the CCWG-Principles.
SO: Is this referring to the current CCWG framework open for PC or principles that will be set in the charter of each CCWG? If the former then fine(although I would note that having such mindset early would have been a good thing), however if it's the later I guess the high-level principles of the SCWG is indeed what we are discussing and I don't think it's something to be determined later.
Regards
· Question 24: no change
· Other comments: Sharon has one question regaring 18.4a. Will reach out to Avri and Matt to clarify.
· Paul Kane noted concerns with consistency in Bylaws language and focus on gTLDs.
Action (Sharon): Reach out to Avri and Matt with Client Committee in copy about language in 18.4a.
2. AOB
Next meeting (Thursday 14 April at 16:00 UTC). Group may not need a meeting on Thursday. The implementation update and other items
may be able to be provided via email.
Action (Chairs): Due to time constraints on this call, Chairs will discuss and revert back to group with next steps.
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Dear lawyers Pls kindly provide clear and unambiguous reply to my e- mails 1. Source of red, green and blue as I did not find that in your mapping doc. 2. Clear answers to maintaining the scope of Carve out to those contained in Beckie message at the meeting when this concept was brought to CCWG REGARDS KAVOUSS Sent from my iPhone
On 12 Apr 2016, at 07:47, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Co-Chairs,
Will be good to hear response to my questions (bearing in mind the update provided by Grace).
Regards PS: Anyone who has a clear understanding may help as well.
Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 11 Apr 2016 19:55, "Seun Ojedeji" <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote: Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 11 Apr 2016 6:39 p.m., "Brenda Brewer" <brenda.brewer@icann.org> wrote:
· Question 9: change to reflect confirmation of the question: CSC liaison is intended to come from RrSG or NCSG. Only restriction is that this not be from a gTLD registry.
SO: That there is still a "or" between NCSG and RrSG makes me wonder what this mean in practice; that NCSG will not appoint if RrSG appointed a liaison first or the other way round?
Secondly, what's the use of a liaison since the DUO are components of the GNSO. I have not gone to the proposal to check if this is inline but it seem like an overkill to me.
· Question 10: no change.
· Question 11: the "it may be appropriate" section can be placed in the Charter. It is not for inclusion in Bylaws.
· Question 12: no change.
· Question 13: We can keep the clarification and refer to the original text as inclusive of the broader community of 'consumers'.
SO: sounds more broadly inclusive and clear than the alternative.
Or an
alternative: direct customers of the naming services" (text used for CSC). That text is as follows: "Any necessary additions to the IANA SOW to account for the needs of the consumers of the IANA naming functions [and/or] the ICANN community at large".
Question 22: no support for defining a simple majority. There is support for use of consensus. The CWG-Stewardship proposal states that the SCWG would follow the stndards established by the CCWG-Principles.
SO: Is this referring to the current CCWG framework open for PC or principles that will be set in the charter of each CCWG? If the former then fine(although I would note that having such mindset early would have been a good thing), however if it's the later I guess the high-level principles of the SCWG is indeed what we are discussing and I don't think it's something to be determined later.
Regards
· Question 24: no change
· Other comments: Sharon has one question regaring 18.4a. Will reach out to Avri and Matt to clarify.
· Paul Kane noted concerns with consistency in Bylaws language and focus on gTLDs.
Action (Sharon): Reach out to Avri and Matt with Client Committee in copy about language in 18.4a.
2. AOB
Next meeting (Thursday 14 April at 16:00 UTC). Group may not need a meeting on Thursday. The implementation update and other items may be able to be provided via email.
Action (Chairs): Due to time constraints on this call, Chairs will discuss and revert back to group with next steps.
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Seun, I’ll do what I can to answer the questions. As you say, others may have a view. Please seen inline below. Trust that’s helpful. Jonathan From: Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com] Sent: 12 April 2016 06:47 To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Notes, Recordings, Transcript CWG IANA Bylaws Review Meeting | 11 April 2016 Dear Co-Chairs, Will be good to hear response to my questions (bearing in mind the update provided by Grace). Regards PS: Anyone who has a clear understanding may help as well. Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 11 Apr 2016 19:55, "Seun Ojedeji" <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com <mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> > wrote: Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 11 Apr 2016 6:39 p.m., "Brenda Brewer" <brenda.brewer@icann.org <mailto:brenda.brewer@icann.org> > wrote:
· Question 9: change to reflect confirmation of the question: CSC liaison is intended to come from RrSG or NCSG. Only restriction is that this not be from a gTLD registry.
SO: That there is still a "or" between NCSG and RrSG makes me wonder what this mean in practice; that NCSG will not appoint if RrSG appointed a liaison first or the other way round? As per the proposal, Registries substantially determine the composition of the CSC. IMO, the purpose of Liaison is to provide others in the GNSO with opportunity to monitor and interact with CSC. Liaison therefore to come from GNSO but not from Registries (i.e. NCPH or RrSG) Secondly, what's the use of a liaison since the DUO are components of the GNSO. I have not gone to the proposal to check if this is inline but it seem like an overkill to me.
· Question 10: no change.
· Question 11: the "it may be appropriate" section can be placed in the Charter. It is not for inclusion in Bylaws.
· Question 12: no change.
· Question 13: We can keep the clarification and refer to the original text as inclusive of the broader community of 'consumers'.
SO: sounds more broadly inclusive and clear than the alternative. Agreed Or an
alternative: direct customers of the naming services" (text used for CSC). That text is as follows: "Any necessary additions to the IANA SOW to account for the needs of the consumers of the IANA naming functions [and/or] the ICANN community at large".
Question 22: no support for defining a simple majority. There is support for use of consensus. The CWG-Stewardship proposal states that the SCWG would follow the stndards established by the CCWG-Principles.
SO: Is this referring to the current CCWG framework open for PC or principles that will be set in the charter of each CCWG? If the former then fine(although I would note that having such mindset early would have been a good thing), however if it's the later I guess the high-level principles of the SCWG is indeed what we are discussing and I don't think it's something to be determined later. CWG proposal (para. 391, p. 91) says: “The SCWG will follow the overall guidelines and procedures for ICANN Cross Community Working Groups.” I read this to be such guidelines (for CWGs) that are in place or developed from time to time. Therefore I read this to be the (outcome) of the former i.e. the CCWG-Principles has draft guidelines currently out for public comment. Regards
· Question 24: no change
· Other comments: Sharon has one question regaring 18.4a. Will reach out to Avri and Matt to clarify.
· Paul Kane noted concerns with consistency in Bylaws language and focus on gTLDs.
Action (Sharon): Reach out to Avri and Matt with Client Committee in copy about language in 18.4a.
2. AOB
Next meeting (Thursday 14 April at 16:00 UTC). Group may not need a meeting on Thursday. The implementation update and other items may be able to be provided via email.
Action (Chairs): Due to time constraints on this call, Chairs will discuss and revert back to group with next steps.
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org <mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
participants (3)
-
Jonathan Robinson -
Kavouss Arasteh -
Seun Ojedeji