Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Important: Final Proposal for review until 23:59 UTC on 10 June
Understood. But to ensure proper intent and translation, I think less potentially ambiguous. Alan At 10/06/2015 08:34 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:
Each means both in this sentence. (A bill requires approval of each house of Congress before it is sent to the President.) Either would mean one or the other.
That said both also works.
On Wednesday, June 10, 2015, Alan Greenberg <<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote: A few minutes late, but...
In paragraph 125, page 24 of V4, I can live with the current wording about the optional Public Comment but meaningful AC/SO consultation.
However, the wording change I requested to clarify that the BOTH the ccNSO and GNSO approval is needed was not made.
...triggered by a supermajority vote of each of the ccNSO and GNSO Councils ...
should read
...triggered by a supermajority vote of BOTH of the ccNSO and GNSO Councils...
(Caps added to highlight the change in this message. The "of" following "both" is probably not needed.)
Alan
At 09/06/2015 10:59 PM, Grace Abuhamad wrote:
Forwarding again to Client Committee.
From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org > Date: Tuesday, June 9, 2015 at 5:46 PM To: Brenda Brewer <brenda.brewer@icann.org >, " cwg-stewardship@icann.org" < cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Important: Final Proposal for review until 23:59UTC on 10 June
Dear all,
During our meeting today, we had our 3rd and final reading of the Proposal. Changes were made live, and outstanding changes were noted as action items (see notes below). The staff team has reviewed the proposal and completed all actions listed. Please note that Sidley will provide a final review as well which includes some work on the implementation text in Section IV and the Term Sheet in Annex S.
With this, the CWG-Stewardship now enters into a final review period that lasts until 23:59 UTC tomorrow (10 June). As noted on the call, the intention of the review period is to do a âproofreadâ and notify the group of any errors. During this period of 26 hours, any statements or comments on the Proposal may also be sent to the group. As the Chairs noted on the call, if you are making a statement, please be sure to identify whether you do so as a member on behalf of a Chartering Organization, as an individual representing a specific organization, or as an individual with a personal remark/contribution.
After 23:59 UTC on 10 June, the Chairs will work with staff to rectify any errors, update section VI.C. regarding statements, and deliver the Proposal to the Chartering Organizations on 11 June. Our call on 11 June will focus on how the CWG-Stewardship does its engagement, through its members and participants, to coalesce support for the Proposal among Chartering Organizations. In addition, there are two webinars on 11 June (one at 06:00 UTC and one at 13:00 UTC): <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-06-03-en>https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-06-03-en. These webinars aim to provide a briefing to the broader community about the contents of the final proposal. Finally, as we head into ICANN53 in Buenos Aires, please refer to the schedule of sessions that relate to the CWG-Stewardship work: <https://community.icann.org/x/EJg0Aw>https://community.icann.org/x/EJg0Aw.
Thank you all for your great work and dedication to the process. Please contact us if you have any questions regarding the process or administration over the next 48h.
Best, Gramika (Grace+Marika)
From: Brenda Brewer <brenda.brewer@icann.org > Date: Tuesday, June 9, 2015 at 4:01 PM To: " cwg-stewardship@icann.org" < cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Notes, Recordings, Transcript CWG IANA #58 9 June 2015
Dear all,
The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CWG IANA Meeting # 58 on 9 June 2015 are available here: <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53778032>https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53778032
Kind regards, Brenda
Action Items
Paragraph 108: Action: In document text, remove --> "as it is customary"
Paragraph 134: Action: conform text to the defined terms used in the rest of the Proposal, among other things
Paragraph 155: Action: remove capitals in "standing committee"
Section IV: Action: Sidley to provide text on PTI implementation.
Annex H: Action: remove escalation paragraph and preamble
Annex J: Action: edits to #3 should be cross-checked with CSC Charter
Action: conform text to the defined terms used in the rest of the Proposal, among other things
Notes
1. Opening Remarks · A big thanks to all who contributed to edits. · Following closure of this meeting, staff will send final document to the CWG. · CWG will then have 24h to notify the group of any errors. Intention is not to reopen issues, but to focus on proofing --> DUE AT 23:59 UTC on 10 JUNE · Chairs will transmit to SO/ACs on 11 June with covering note.
2. Finalizing the Review Tool & Responses
Can expect a final version to be circulated in the next 24h. Staff is working on consistency-checking across the responses. The document is frozen as of 1 June.
3. Update on questions to ICANN Finance & Legal
The letter and responses from ICANN are posted on Wiki: <https://community.icann.org/x/7Jk0Aw>https://community.icann.org/x/7Jk0Aw.
Staff have included the responses in Section IV (and included an Annex to for the Finance information).
4. Last Review of Final Proposal
On screen now is version 5. The difference between the previous version and the latest is that the Chairs took some time to review which items were still open and which had been resolved. Tried to focus CWG on the key outstanding issues. This latest version also includes the DT-A annex which has now been included.
Paragraph 108: Change the wording from "ringfence" to "isolate" and remove the definition in the footnote. ICANN has control and ownership of PTI and the implementation documents will assure against further transfer out of assets.
Action: In document text, remove --> "as it is customary"
Paragraph 121/ Footnote 11: footnote is satisfactory.
Paragraph 125: make clear "supermajority from both" ccNSO and GNSO. Also including the CSC as part of the remit.
Paragraph 128: covered by resolution in paragraph 121
Paragraph 134: SLEs discussion -- principles are included in annex and summary is included in the section now.
Action: conform text to the defined terms used in the rest of the Proposal, among other things
Paragraph 155: Action: remove capitals in "standing committee"
Section IV: Action: Sidley to provide text on PTI implementation.
Annex G: edit to the Remedial Action Procedures table
Annex H: Action: remove escalation paragraph and preamble
Annex J: Action: edits to #3 should be cross-checked with CSC Charter
Term Sheet: staff to revise with comments from Sidley and Greg
5. Overall Timeline / Milestones
a. Communications
b. Webinars on 11 June
c. Sessions at ICANN 53
6. AOB
a. Thursday 11 June -- 1 hour call about CWG engagement
b. Canceling Tuesday 16 June call
c. Client Committee on Friday 12 June
7. Closing Remarks
After proposal is sent, 24h to respond with comments or statements DUE AT 23:59 UTC on 10 JUNE
_______________________________________________ Cwg-client mailing list Cwg-client@icann.org <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-client>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-client
Alan, Thank-you for your acceptance of the current wording. Please note that from my recall, Sidley proposed the introduction of “each” as legally less ambiguous. I believe the chat record from Tuesday’s meeting will confirm this but haven’t yet checked. If this is so, I suggest we stick with it (each). Jonathan From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca] Sent: 11 June 2015 04:46 To: Greg Shatan Cc: CWG Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Important: Final Proposal for review until 23:59 UTC on 10 June Understood. But to ensure proper intent and translation, I think less potentially ambiguous. Alan At 10/06/2015 08:34 PM, Greg Shatan wrote: Each means both in this sentence. (A bill requires approval of each house of Congress before it is sent to the President.) Either would mean one or the other. That said both also works. On Wednesday, June 10, 2015, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca > wrote: A few minutes late, but... In paragraph 125, page 24 of V4, I can live with the current wording about the optional Public Comment but meaningful AC/SO consultation. However, the wording change I requested to clarify that the BOTH the ccNSO and GNSO approval is needed was not made. ...triggered by a supermajority vote of each of the ccNSO and GNSO Councils ... should read ...triggered by a supermajority vote of BOTH of the ccNSO and GNSO Councils... (Caps added to highlight the change in this message. The "of" following "both" is probably not needed.) Alan At 09/06/2015 10:59 PM, Grace Abuhamad wrote: Forwarding again to Client Committee. From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org <mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org%20> > Date: Tuesday, June 9, 2015 at 5:46 PM To: Brenda Brewer <brenda.brewer@icann.org <mailto:brenda.brewer@icann.org%20> >, " cwg-stewardship@icann.org" < cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Important: Final Proposal for review until 23:59UTC on 10 June Dear all, During our meeting today, we had our 3rd and final reading of the Proposal. Changes were made live, and outstanding changes were noted as action items (see notes below). The staff team has reviewed the proposal and completed all actions listed. Please note that Sidley will provide a final review as well which includes some work on the implementation text in Section IV and the Term Sheet in Annex S. With this, the CWG-Stewardship now enters into a final review period that lasts until 23:59 UTC tomorrow (10 June). As noted on the call, the intention of the review period is to do a ‘proofread’ and notify the group of any errors. During this period of 26 hours, any statements or comments on the Proposal may also be sent to the group. As the Chairs noted on the call, if you are making a statement, please be sure to identify whether you do so as a member on behalf of a Chartering Organization, as an individual representing a specific organization, or as an individual with a personal remark/contribution. After 23:59 UTC on 10 June, the Chairs will work with staff to rectify any errors, update section VI.C. regarding statements, and deliver the Proposal to the Chartering Organizations on 11 June. Our call on 11 June will focus on how the CWG-Stewardship does its engagement, through its members and participants, to coalesce support for the Proposal among Chartering Organizations. In addition, there are two webinars on 11 June (one at 06:00 UTC and one at 13:00 UTC): https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-06-03-en. These webinars aim to provide a briefing to the broader community about the contents of the final proposal. Finally, as we head into ICANN53 in Buenos Aires, please refer to the schedule of sessions that relate to the CWG-Stewardship work: https://community.icann.org/x/EJg0Aw. Thank you all for your great work and dedication to the process. Please contact us if you have any questions regarding the process or administration over the next 48h. Best, Gramika (Grace+Marika) From: Brenda Brewer <brenda.brewer@icann.org <mailto:brenda.brewer@icann.org%20> > Date: Tuesday, June 9, 2015 at 4:01 PM To: " cwg-stewardship@icann.org" < cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Notes, Recordings, Transcript CWG IANA #58 9 June 2015 Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CWG IANA Meeting # 58 on 9 June 2015 are available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53778032 Kind regards, Brenda Action Items Paragraph 108: Action: In document text, remove --> "as it is customary" Paragraph 134: Action: conform text to the defined terms used in the rest of the Proposal, among other things Paragraph 155: Action: remove capitals in "standing committee" Section IV: Action: Sidley to provide text on PTI implementation. Annex H: Action: remove escalation paragraph and preamble Annex J: Action: edits to #3 should be cross-checked with CSC Charter Action: conform text to the defined terms used in the rest of the Proposal, among other things Notes 1. Opening Remarks · A big thanks to all who contributed to edits. · Following closure of this meeting, staff will send final document to the CWG. · CWG will then have 24h to notify the group of any errors. Intention is not to reopen issues, but to focus on proofing --> DUE AT 23:59 UTC on 10 JUNE · Chairs will transmit to SO/ACs on 11 June with covering note. 2. Finalizing the Review Tool & Responses Can expect a final version to be circulated in the next 24h. Staff is working on consistency-checking across the responses. The document is frozen as of 1 June. 3. Update on questions to ICANN Finance & Legal The letter and responses from ICANN are posted on Wiki: https://community.icann.org/x/7Jk0Aw. <https://community.icann.org/x/7Jk0Aw> Staff have included the responses in Section IV (and included an Annex to for the Finance information). 4. Last Review of Final Proposal On screen now is version 5. The difference between the previous version and the latest is that the Chairs took some time to review which items were still open and which had been resolved. Tried to focus CWG on the key outstanding issues. This latest version also includes the DT-A annex which has now been included. Paragraph 108: Change the wording from "ringfence" to "isolate" and remove the definition in the footnote. ICANN has control and ownership of PTI and the implementation documents will assure against further transfer out of assets. Action: In document text, remove --> "as it is customary" Paragraph 121/ Footnote 11: footnote is satisfactory. Paragraph 125: make clear "supermajority from both" ccNSO and GNSO. Also including the CSC as part of the remit. Paragraph 128: covered by resolution in paragraph 121 Paragraph 134: SLEs discussion -- principles are included in annex and summary is included in the section now. Action: conform text to the defined terms used in the rest of the Proposal, among other things Paragraph 155: Action: remove capitals in "standing committee" Section IV: Action: Sidley to provide text on PTI implementation. Annex G: edit to the Remedial Action Procedures table Annex H: Action: remove escalation paragraph and preamble Annex J: Action: edits to #3 should be cross-checked with CSC Charter Term Sheet: staff to revise with comments from Sidley and Greg 5. Overall Timeline / Milestones a. Communications b. Webinars on 11 June c. Sessions at ICANN 53 6. AOB a. Thursday 11 June -- 1 hour call about CWG engagement b. Canceling Tuesday 16 June call c. Client Committee on Friday 12 June 7. Closing Remarks After proposal is sent, 24h to respond with comments or statements DUE AT 23:59 UTC on 10 JUNE _______________________________________________ Cwg-client mailing list Cwg-client@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-client
Another reason for using ‘each’ is that in some cases a problem may be essentially just a cc problem or just a g problem and in those cases it may not be appropriate for one of the SOs to be able to block an action. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 2:26 AM To: 'Alan Greenberg'; 'Greg Shatan' Cc: 'CWG' Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Important: Final Proposal for review until 23:59 UTC on 10 June Alan, Thank-you for your acceptance of the current wording. Please note that from my recall, Sidley proposed the introduction of “each” as legally less ambiguous. I believe the chat record from Tuesday’s meeting will confirm this but haven’t yet checked. If this is so, I suggest we stick with it (each). Jonathan From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca] Sent: 11 June 2015 04:46 To: Greg Shatan Cc: CWG Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Important: Final Proposal for review until 23:59 UTC on 10 June Understood. But to ensure proper intent and translation, I think less potentially ambiguous. Alan At 10/06/2015 08:34 PM, Greg Shatan wrote: Each means both in this sentence. (A bill requires approval of each house of Congress before it is sent to the President.) Either would mean one or the other. That said both also works. On Wednesday, June 10, 2015, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> > wrote: A few minutes late, but... In paragraph 125, page 24 of V4, I can live with the current wording about the optional Public Comment but meaningful AC/SO consultation. However, the wording change I requested to clarify that the BOTH the ccNSO and GNSO approval is needed was not made. ...triggered by a supermajority vote of each of the ccNSO and GNSO Councils ... should read ...triggered by a supermajority vote of BOTH of the ccNSO and GNSO Councils... (Caps added to highlight the change in this message. The "of" following "both" is probably not needed.) Alan At 09/06/2015 10:59 PM, Grace Abuhamad wrote: Forwarding again to Client Committee. From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org <mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org%20> > Date: Tuesday, June 9, 2015 at 5:46 PM To: Brenda Brewer <brenda.brewer@icann.org <mailto:brenda.brewer@icann.org%20> >, " cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>" < cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Important: Final Proposal for review until 23:59UTC on 10 June Dear all, During our meeting today, we had our 3rd and final reading of the Proposal. Changes were made live, and outstanding changes were noted as action items (see notes below). The staff team has reviewed the proposal and completed all actions listed. Please note that Sidley will provide a final review as well which includes some work on the implementation text in Section IV and the Term Sheet in Annex S. With this, the CWG-Stewardship now enters into a final review period that lasts until 23:59 UTC tomorrow (10 June). As noted on the call, the intention of the review period is to do a ‘proofread’ and notify the group of any errors. During this period of 26 hours, any statements or comments on the Proposal may also be sent to the group. As the Chairs noted on the call, if you are making a statement, please be sure to identify whether you do so as a member on behalf of a Chartering Organization, as an individual representing a specific organization, or as an individual with a personal remark/contribution. After 23:59 UTC on 10 June, the Chairs will work with staff to rectify any errors, update section VI.C. regarding statements, and deliver the Proposal to the Chartering Organizations on 11 June. Our call on 11 June will focus on how the CWG-Stewardship does its engagement, through its members and participants, to coalesce support for the Proposal among Chartering Organizations. In addition, there are two webinars on 11 June (one at 06:00 UTC and one at 13:00 UTC): https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-06-03-en. These webinars aim to provide a briefing to the broader community about the contents of the final proposal. Finally, as we head into ICANN53 in Buenos Aires, please refer to the schedule of sessions that relate to the CWG-Stewardship work: https://community.icann.org/x/EJg0Aw. Thank you all for your great work and dedication to the process. Please contact us if you have any questions regarding the process or administration over the next 48h. Best, Gramika (Grace+Marika) From: Brenda Brewer <brenda.brewer@icann.org <mailto:brenda.brewer@icann.org%20> > Date: Tuesday, June 9, 2015 at 4:01 PM To: " cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>" < cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Notes, Recordings, Transcript CWG IANA #58 9 June 2015 Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CWG IANA Meeting # 58 on 9 June 2015 are available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53778032 Kind regards, Brenda Action Items Paragraph 108: Action: In document text, remove --> "as it is customary" Paragraph 134: Action: conform text to the defined terms used in the rest of the Proposal, among other things Paragraph 155: Action: remove capitals in "standing committee" Section IV: Action: Sidley to provide text on PTI implementation. Annex H: Action: remove escalation paragraph and preamble Annex J: Action: edits to #3 should be cross-checked with CSC Charter Action: conform text to the defined terms used in the rest of the Proposal, among other things Notes 1. Opening Remarks · A big thanks to all who contributed to edits. · Following closure of this meeting, staff will send final document to the CWG. · CWG will then have 24h to notify the group of any errors. Intention is not to reopen issues, but to focus on proofing --> DUE AT 23:59 UTC on 10 JUNE · Chairs will transmit to SO/ACs on 11 June with covering note. 2. Finalizing the Review Tool & Responses Can expect a final version to be circulated in the next 24h. Staff is working on consistency-checking across the responses. The document is frozen as of 1 June. 3. Update on questions to ICANN Finance & Legal The letter and responses from ICANN are posted on Wiki: https://community.icann.org/x/7Jk0Aw. <https://community.icann.org/x/7Jk0Aw> Staff have included the responses in Section IV (and included an Annex to for the Finance information). 4. Last Review of Final Proposal On screen now is version 5. The difference between the previous version and the latest is that the Chairs took some time to review which items were still open and which had been resolved. Tried to focus CWG on the key outstanding issues. This latest version also includes the DT-A annex which has now been included. Paragraph 108: Change the wording from "ringfence" to "isolate" and remove the definition in the footnote. ICANN has control and ownership of PTI and the implementation documents will assure against further transfer out of assets. Action: In document text, remove --> "as it is customary" Paragraph 121/ Footnote 11: footnote is satisfactory. Paragraph 125: make clear "supermajority from both" ccNSO and GNSO. Also including the CSC as part of the remit. Paragraph 128: covered by resolution in paragraph 121 Paragraph 134: SLEs discussion -- principles are included in annex and summary is included in the section now. Action: conform text to the defined terms used in the rest of the Proposal, among other things Paragraph 155: Action: remove capitals in "standing committee" Section IV: Action: Sidley to provide text on PTI implementation. Annex G: edit to the Remedial Action Procedures table Annex H: Action: remove escalation paragraph and preamble Annex J: Action: edits to #3 should be cross-checked with CSC Charter Term Sheet: staff to revise with comments from Sidley and Greg 5. Overall Timeline / Milestones a. Communications b. Webinars on 11 June c. Sessions at ICANN 53 6. AOB a. Thursday 11 June -- 1 hour call about CWG engagement b. Canceling Tuesday 16 June call c. Client Committee on Friday 12 June 7. Closing Remarks After proposal is sent, 24h to respond with comments or statements DUE AT 23:59 UTC on 10 JUNE _______________________________________________ Cwg-client mailing list Cwg-client@icann.org<mailto:Cwg-client@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-client
While it is important to get the formal rule specified correctly, I think it’s also helpful to have a clear picture of how this will work in practice. I would expect that once the CSC calls for a special review, the ccNSO and GNSO councils will almost certainly agree. The CSC is supposed to have the technical expertise to understand the issues. The only circumstance I can imagine where the ccNSO and/or GNSO councils might balk is if they feel the CSC is somehow out of control. In general, I would expect quick agreement from the councils. It costs them little to agree but if they disagree they will have to explain why and brace themselves for some criticism. I don’t have any objection to the proposed formal rule. It serves as safety net in case the CSC is indeed awry, and it also serves as a forcing function to get the ccNSO and GNSO councils to pay attention to what the CSC is saying. Steve On Jun 11, 2015, at 7:57 AM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
Another reason for using ‘each’ is that in some cases a problem may be essentially just a cc problem or just a g problem and in those cases it may not be appropriate for one of the SOs to be able to block an action.
Chuck
From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 2:26 AM To: 'Alan Greenberg'; 'Greg Shatan' Cc: 'CWG' Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Important: Final Proposal for review until 23:59 UTC on 10 June
Alan,
Thank-you for your acceptance of the current wording.
Please note that from my recall, Sidley proposed the introduction of “each” as legally less ambiguous. I believe the chat record from Tuesday’s meeting will confirm this but haven’t yet checked.
If this is so, I suggest we stick with it (each).
Jonathan
From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca] Sent: 11 June 2015 04:46 To: Greg Shatan Cc: CWG Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Important: Final Proposal for review until 23:59 UTC on 10 June
Understood. But to ensure proper intent and translation, I think less potentially ambiguous.
Alan
At 10/06/2015 08:34 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:
Each means both in this sentence. (A bill requires approval of each house of Congress before it is sent to the President.) Either would mean one or the other.
That said both also works.
On Wednesday, June 10, 2015, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca > wrote: A few minutes late, but...
In paragraph 125, page 24 of V4, I can live with the current wording about the optional Public Comment but meaningful AC/SO consultation.
However, the wording change I requested to clarify that the BOTH the ccNSO and GNSO approval is needed was not made.
...triggered by a supermajority vote of each of the ccNSO and GNSO Councils ...
should read
...triggered by a supermajority vote of BOTH of the ccNSO and GNSO Councils...
(Caps added to highlight the change in this message. The "of" following "both" is probably not needed.)
Alan
At 09/06/2015 10:59 PM, Grace Abuhamad wrote:
Forwarding again to Client Committee.
From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org > Date: Tuesday, June 9, 2015 at 5:46 PM To: Brenda Brewer <brenda.brewer@icann.org >, " cwg-stewardship@icann.org" < cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Important: Final Proposal for review until 23:59UTC on 10 June
Dear all,
During our meeting today, we had our 3rd and final reading of the Proposal. Changes were made live, and outstanding changes were noted as action items (see notes below). The staff team has reviewed the proposal and completed all actions listed. Please note that Sidley will provide a final review as well which includes some work on the implementation text in Section IV and the Term Sheet in Annex S.
With this, the CWG-Stewardship now enters into a final review period that lasts until 23:59 UTC tomorrow (10 June). As noted on the call, the intention of the review period is to do a ‘proofread’ and notify the group of any errors. During this period of 26 hours, any statements or comments on the Proposal may also be sent to the group. As the Chairs noted on the call, if you are making a statement, please be sure to identify whether you do so as a member on behalf of a Chartering Organization, as an individual representing a specific organization, or as an individual with a personal remark/contribution.
After 23:59 UTC on 10 June, the Chairs will work with staff to rectify any errors, update section VI.C. regarding statements, and deliver the Proposal to the Chartering Organizations on 11 June. Our call on 11 June will focus on how the CWG-Stewardship does its engagement, through its members and participants, to coalesce support for the Proposal among Chartering Organizations. In addition, there are two webinars on 11 June (one at 06:00 UTC and one at 13:00 UTC): https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-06-03-en. These webinars aim to provide a briefing to the broader community about the contents of the final proposal. Finally, as we head into ICANN53 in Buenos Aires, please refer to the schedule of sessions that relate to the CWG-Stewardship work:https://community.icann.org/x/EJg0Aw.
Thank you all for your great work and dedication to the process. Please contact us if you have any questions regarding the process or administration over the next 48h.
Best, Gramika (Grace+Marika)
From: Brenda Brewer <brenda.brewer@icann.org > Date: Tuesday, June 9, 2015 at 4:01 PM To: " cwg-stewardship@icann.org" < cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Notes, Recordings, Transcript CWG IANA #58 9 June 2015
Dear all,
The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CWG IANA Meeting # 58 on 9 June 2015 are available here:https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53778032
Kind regards, Brenda
Action Items
Paragraph 108: Action: In document text, remove --> "as it is customary"
Paragraph 134: Action: conform text to the defined terms used in the rest of the Proposal, among other things
Paragraph 155: Action: remove capitals in "standing committee"
Section IV: Action: Sidley to provide text on PTI implementation.
Annex H: Action: remove escalation paragraph and preamble
Annex J: Action: edits to #3 should be cross-checked with CSC Charter
Action: conform text to the defined terms used in the rest of the Proposal, among other things
Notes
1. Opening Remarks · A big thanks to all who contributed to edits. · Following closure of this meeting, staff will send final document to the CWG. · CWG will then have 24h to notify the group of any errors. Intention is not to reopen issues, but to focus on proofing --> DUE AT 23:59 UTC on 10 JUNE · Chairs will transmit to SO/ACs on 11 June with covering note.
2. Finalizing the Review Tool & Responses
Can expect a final version to be circulated in the next 24h. Staff is working on consistency-checking across the responses. The document is frozen as of 1 June.
3. Update on questions to ICANN Finance & Legal
The letter and responses from ICANN are posted on Wiki: https://community.icann.org/x/7Jk0Aw.
Staff have included the responses in Section IV (and included an Annex to for the Finance information).
4. Last Review of Final Proposal
On screen now is version 5. The difference between the previous version and the latest is that the Chairs took some time to review which items were still open and which had been resolved. Tried to focus CWG on the key outstanding issues. This latest version also includes the DT-A annex which has now been included.
Paragraph 108: Change the wording from "ringfence" to "isolate" and remove the definition in the footnote. ICANN has control and ownership of PTI and the implementation documents will assure against further transfer out of assets.
Action: In document text, remove --> "as it is customary"
Paragraph 121/ Footnote 11: footnote is satisfactory.
Paragraph 125: make clear "supermajority from both" ccNSO and GNSO. Also including the CSC as part of the remit.
Paragraph 128: covered by resolution in paragraph 121
Paragraph 134: SLEs discussion -- principles are included in annex and summary is included in the section now.
Action: conform text to the defined terms used in the rest of the Proposal, among other things
Paragraph 155: Action: remove capitals in "standing committee"
Section IV: Action: Sidley to provide text on PTI implementation.
Annex G: edit to the Remedial Action Procedures table
Annex H: Action: remove escalation paragraph and preamble
Annex J: Action: edits to #3 should be cross-checked with CSC Charter
Term Sheet: staff to revise with comments from Sidley and Greg
5. Overall Timeline / Milestones
a. Communications
b. Webinars on 11 June
c. Sessions at ICANN 53
6. AOB
a. Thursday 11 June -- 1 hour call about CWG engagement
b. Canceling Tuesday 16 June call
c. Client Committee on Friday 12 June
7. Closing Remarks
After proposal is sent, 24h to respond with comments or statements DUE AT 23:59 UTC on 10 JUNE
_______________________________________________ Cwg-client mailing list Cwg-client@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-client _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Steve, Agreed. Well put. Jonathan From: Steve Crocker [mailto:steve.crocker@icann.org] Sent: 11 June 2015 12:14 To: CWG Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Important: Final Proposal for review until 23:59 UTC on 10 June While it is important to get the formal rule specified correctly, I think it’s also helpful to have a clear picture of how this will work in practice. I would expect that once the CSC calls for a special review, the ccNSO and GNSO councils will almost certainly agree. The CSC is supposed to have the technical expertise to understand the issues. The only circumstance I can imagine where the ccNSO and/or GNSO councils might balk is if they feel the CSC is somehow out of control. In general, I would expect quick agreement from the councils. It costs them little to agree but if they disagree they will have to explain why and brace themselves for some criticism. I don’t have any objection to the proposed formal rule. It serves as safety net in case the CSC is indeed awry, and it also serves as a forcing function to get the ccNSO and GNSO councils to pay attention to what the CSC is saying. Steve On Jun 11, 2015, at 7:57 AM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote: Another reason for using ‘each’ is that in some cases a problem may be essentially just a cc problem or just a g problem and in those cases it may not be appropriate for one of the SOs to be able to block an action. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 2:26 AM To: 'Alan Greenberg'; 'Greg Shatan' Cc: 'CWG' Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Important: Final Proposal for review until 23:59 UTC on 10 June Alan, Thank-you for your acceptance of the current wording. Please note that from my recall, Sidley proposed the introduction of “each” as legally less ambiguous. I believe the chat record from Tuesday’s meeting will confirm this but haven’t yet checked. If this is so, I suggest we stick with it (each). Jonathan From: Alan Greenberg [ <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca] Sent: 11 June 2015 04:46 To: Greg Shatan Cc: CWG Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Important: Final Proposal for review until 23:59 UTC on 10 June Understood. But to ensure proper intent and translation, I think less potentially ambiguous. Alan At 10/06/2015 08:34 PM, Greg Shatan wrote: Each means both in this sentence. (A bill requires approval of each house of Congress before it is sent to the President.) Either would mean one or the other. That said both also works. On Wednesday, June 10, 2015, Alan Greenberg < <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca > wrote: A few minutes late, but... In paragraph 125, page 24 of V4, I can live with the current wording about the optional Public Comment but meaningful AC/SO consultation. However, the wording change I requested to clarify that the BOTH the ccNSO and GNSO approval is needed was not made. ...triggered by a supermajority vote of each of the ccNSO and GNSO Councils ... should read ...triggered by a supermajority vote of BOTH of the ccNSO and GNSO Councils... (Caps added to highlight the change in this message. The "of" following "both" is probably not needed.) Alan At 09/06/2015 10:59 PM, Grace Abuhamad wrote: Forwarding again to Client Committee. From: Grace Abuhamad < <mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org%20> grace.abuhamad@icann.org > Date: Tuesday, June 9, 2015 at 5:46 PM To: Brenda Brewer < <mailto:brenda.brewer@icann.org%20> brenda.brewer@icann.org >, " <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> cwg-stewardship@icann.org" < <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Important: Final Proposal for review until 23:59UTC on 10 June Dear all, During our meeting today, we had our 3rd and final reading of the Proposal. Changes were made live, and outstanding changes were noted as action items (see notes below). The staff team has reviewed the proposal and completed all actions listed. Please note that Sidley will provide a final review as well which includes some work on the implementation text in Section IV and the Term Sheet in Annex S. With this, the CWG-Stewardship now enters into a final review period that lasts until 23:59 UTC tomorrow (10 June). As noted on the call, the intention of the review period is to do a ‘proofread’ and notify the group of any errors. During this period of 26 hours, any statements or comments on the Proposal may also be sent to the group. As the Chairs noted on the call, if you are making a statement, please be sure to identify whether you do so as a member on behalf of a Chartering Organization, as an individual representing a specific organization, or as an individual with a personal remark/contribution. After 23:59 UTC on 10 June, the Chairs will work with staff to rectify any errors, update section VI.C. regarding statements, and deliver the Proposal to the Chartering Organizations on 11 June. Our call on 11 June will focus on how the CWG-Stewardship does its engagement, through its members and participants, to coalesce support for the Proposal among Chartering Organizations. In addition, there are two webinars on 11 June (one at 06:00 UTC and one at 13:00 UTC): <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-06-03-en> https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-06-03-en. These webinars aim to provide a briefing to the broader community about the contents of the final proposal. Finally, as we head into ICANN53 in Buenos Aires, please refer to the schedule of sessions that relate to the CWG-Stewardship work: <https://community.icann.org/x/EJg0Aw> https://community.icann.org/x/EJg0Aw. Thank you all for your great work and dedication to the process. Please contact us if you have any questions regarding the process or administration over the next 48h. Best, Gramika (Grace+Marika) From: Brenda Brewer < <mailto:brenda.brewer@icann.org%20> brenda.brewer@icann.org > Date: Tuesday, June 9, 2015 at 4:01 PM To: " <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> cwg-stewardship@icann.org" < <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Notes, Recordings, Transcript CWG IANA #58 9 June 2015 Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CWG IANA Meeting # 58 on 9 June 2015 are available here: <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53778032> https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53778032 Kind regards, Brenda Action Items Paragraph 108: Action: In document text, remove --> "as it is customary" Paragraph 134: Action: conform text to the defined terms used in the rest of the Proposal, among other things Paragraph 155: Action: remove capitals in "standing committee" Section IV: Action: Sidley to provide text on PTI implementation. Annex H: Action: remove escalation paragraph and preamble Annex J: Action: edits to #3 should be cross-checked with CSC Charter Action: conform text to the defined terms used in the rest of the Proposal, among other things Notes 1. Opening Remarks · A big thanks to all who contributed to edits. · Following closure of this meeting, staff will send final document to the CWG. · CWG will then have 24h to notify the group of any errors. Intention is not to reopen issues, but to focus on proofing --> DUE AT 23:59 UTC on 10 JUNE · Chairs will transmit to SO/ACs on 11 June with covering note. 2. Finalizing the Review Tool & Responses Can expect a final version to be circulated in the next 24h. Staff is working on consistency-checking across the responses. The document is frozen as of 1 June. 3. Update on questions to ICANN Finance & Legal The letter and responses from ICANN are posted on Wiki: <https://community.icann.org/x/7Jk0Aw> https://community.icann.org/x/7Jk0Aw. Staff have included the responses in Section IV (and included an Annex to for the Finance information). 4. Last Review of Final Proposal On screen now is version 5. The difference between the previous version and the latest is that the Chairs took some time to review which items were still open and which had been resolved. Tried to focus CWG on the key outstanding issues. This latest version also includes the DT-A annex which has now been included. Paragraph 108: Change the wording from "ringfence" to "isolate" and remove the definition in the footnote. ICANN has control and ownership of PTI and the implementation documents will assure against further transfer out of assets. Action: In document text, remove --> "as it is customary" Paragraph 121/ Footnote 11: footnote is satisfactory. Paragraph 125: make clear "supermajority from both" ccNSO and GNSO. Also including the CSC as part of the remit. Paragraph 128: covered by resolution in paragraph 121 Paragraph 134: SLEs discussion -- principles are included in annex and summary is included in the section now. Action: conform text to the defined terms used in the rest of the Proposal, among other things Paragraph 155: Action: remove capitals in "standing committee" Section IV: Action: Sidley to provide text on PTI implementation. Annex G: edit to the Remedial Action Procedures table Annex H: Action: remove escalation paragraph and preamble Annex J: Action: edits to #3 should be cross-checked with CSC Charter Term Sheet: staff to revise with comments from Sidley and Greg 5. Overall Timeline / Milestones a. Communications b. Webinars on 11 June c. Sessions at ICANN 53 6. AOB a. Thursday 11 June -- 1 hour call about CWG engagement b. Canceling Tuesday 16 June call c. Client Committee on Friday 12 June 7. Closing Remarks After proposal is sent, 24h to respond with comments or statements DUE AT 23:59 UTC on 10 JUNE _______________________________________________ Cwg-client mailing list <mailto:Cwg-client@icann.org> Cwg-client@icann.org <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-client> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-client _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Chuck, If I understand your point correctly, I don't think that's correct. Both of the SOs must approve. Each does not mean either, it means both. Greg On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 6:57 AM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
Another reason for using ‘each’ is that in some cases a problem may be essentially just a cc problem or just a g problem and in those cases it may not be appropriate for one of the SOs to be able to block an action.
Chuck
*From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Jonathan Robinson *Sent:* Thursday, June 11, 2015 2:26 AM *To:* 'Alan Greenberg'; 'Greg Shatan'
*Cc:* 'CWG' *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Important: Final Proposal for review until 23:59 UTC on 10 June
Alan,
Thank-you for your acceptance of the current wording.
Please note that from my recall, Sidley proposed the introduction of “each” as legally less ambiguous. I believe the chat record from Tuesday’s meeting will confirm this but haven’t yet checked.
If this is so, I suggest we stick with it (each).
Jonathan
*From:* Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>] *Sent:* 11 June 2015 04:46 *To:* Greg Shatan *Cc:* CWG *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Important: Final Proposal for review until 23:59 UTC on 10 June
Understood. But to ensure proper intent and translation, I think less potentially ambiguous.
Alan
At 10/06/2015 08:34 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:
Each means both in this sentence. (A bill requires approval of each house of Congress before it is sent to the President.) Either would mean one or the other.
That said both also works.
On Wednesday, June 10, 2015, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca > wrote:
A few minutes late, but...
In paragraph 125, page 24 of V4, I can live with the current wording about the optional Public Comment but meaningful AC/SO consultation.
However, the wording change I requested to clarify that the BOTH the ccNSO and GNSO approval is needed was not made.
...triggered by a supermajority vote of each of the ccNSO and GNSO Councils ...
should read
...triggered by a supermajority vote of BOTH of the ccNSO and GNSO Councils...
(Caps added to highlight the change in this message. The "of" following "both" is probably not needed.)
Alan
At 09/06/2015 10:59 PM, Grace Abuhamad wrote:
Forwarding again to Client Committee.
From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org <grace.abuhamad@icann.org%20>>
Date: Tuesday, June 9, 2015 at 5:46 PM
To: Brenda Brewer <brenda.brewer@icann.org <brenda.brewer@icann.org%20>>, " cwg-stewardship@icann.org" < cwg-stewardship@icann.org>
Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Important: Final Proposal for review until 23:59UTC on 10 June
Dear all,
During our meeting today, we had our 3rd and final reading of the Proposal. Changes were made live, and outstanding changes were noted as action items (see notes below). The staff team has reviewed the proposal and completed all actions listed. Please note that Sidley will provide a final review as well which includes some work on the implementation text in Section IV and the Term Sheet in Annex S.
With this, the CWG-Stewardship now enters into a final review period that lasts until 23:59 UTC tomorrow (10 June). As noted on the call, the intention of the review period is to do a ‘proofread’ and notify the group of any errors. During this period of 26 hours, any statements or comments on the Proposal may also be sent to the group. As the Chairs noted on the call, if you are making a statement, please be sure to identify whether you do so as a member on behalf of a Chartering Organization, as an individual representing a specific organization, or as an individual with a personal remark/contribution.
After 23:59 UTC on 10 June, the Chairs will work with staff to rectify any errors, update section VI.C. regarding statements, and deliver the Proposal to the Chartering Organizations on 11 June. Our call on 11 June will focus on how the CWG-Stewardship does its engagement, through its members and participants, to coalesce support for the Proposal among Chartering Organizations. In addition, there are two webinars on 11 June (one at 06:00 UTC and one at 13:00 UTC): https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-06-03-en. These webinars aim to provide a briefing to the broader community about the contents of the final proposal. Finally, as we head into ICANN53 in Buenos Aires, please refer to the schedule of sessions that relate to the CWG-Stewardship work: https://community.icann.org/x/EJg0Aw.
Thank you all for your great work and dedication to the process. Please contact us if you have any questions regarding the process or administration over the next 48h.
Best,
Gramika (Grace+Marika)
From: Brenda Brewer <brenda.brewer@icann.org <brenda.brewer@icann.org%20>>
Date: Tuesday, June 9, 2015 at 4:01 PM
To: " cwg-stewardship@icann.org" < cwg-stewardship@icann.org>
Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Notes, Recordings, Transcript CWG IANA #58 9 June 2015
Dear all,
The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CWG IANA Meeting # 58 on 9 June 2015 are available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53778032
Kind regards,
Brenda
Action Items
Paragraph 108: Action: In document text, remove --> "as it is customary"
Paragraph 134: Action: conform text to the defined terms used in the rest of the Proposal, among other things
Paragraph 155: Action: remove capitals in "standing committee"
Section IV: Action: Sidley to provide text on PTI implementation.
Annex H: Action: remove escalation paragraph and preamble
Annex J: Action: edits to #3 should be cross-checked with CSC Charter
Action: conform text to the defined terms used in the rest of the Proposal, among other things
Notes
1. Opening Remarks
· A big thanks to all who contributed to edits.
· Following closure of this meeting, staff will send final document to the CWG.
· CWG will then have 24h to notify the group of any errors. Intention is not to reopen issues, but to focus on proofing --> DUE AT 23:59 UTC on 10 JUNE
· Chairs will transmit to SO/ACs on 11 June with covering note.
2. Finalizing the Review Tool & Responses
Can expect a final version to be circulated in the next 24h. Staff is working on consistency-checking across the responses. The document is frozen as of 1 June.
3. Update on questions to ICANN Finance & Legal
The letter and responses from ICANN are posted on Wiki: https://community.icann.org/x/7Jk0Aw. <https://community.icann.org/x/7Jk0Aw>
Staff have included the responses in Section IV (and included an Annex to for the Finance information).
4. Last Review of Final Proposal
On screen now is version 5. The difference between the previous version and the latest is that the Chairs took some time to review which items were still open and which had been resolved. Tried to focus CWG on the key outstanding issues. This latest version also includes the DT-A annex which has now been included.
Paragraph 108: Change the wording from "ringfence" to "isolate" and remove the definition in the footnote. ICANN has control and ownership of PTI and the implementation documents will assure against further transfer out of assets.
Action: In document text, remove --> "as it is customary"
Paragraph 121/ Footnote 11: footnote is satisfactory.
Paragraph 125: make clear "supermajority from both" ccNSO and GNSO. Also including the CSC as part of the remit.
Paragraph 128: covered by resolution in paragraph 121
Paragraph 134: SLEs discussion -- principles are included in annex and summary is included in the section now.
Action: conform text to the defined terms used in the rest of the Proposal, among other things
Paragraph 155: Action: remove capitals in "standing committee"
Section IV: Action: Sidley to provide text on PTI implementation.
Annex G: edit to the Remedial Action Procedures table
Annex H: Action: remove escalation paragraph and preamble
Annex J: Action: edits to #3 should be cross-checked with CSC Charter
Term Sheet: staff to revise with comments from Sidley and Greg
5. Overall Timeline / Milestones
a. Communications
b. Webinars on 11 June
c. Sessions at ICANN 53
6. AOB
a. Thursday 11 June -- 1 hour call about CWG engagement
b. Canceling Tuesday 16 June call
c. Client Committee on Friday 12 June
7. Closing Remarks
After proposal is sent, 24h to respond with comments or statements DUE AT 23:59 UTC on 10 JUNE
_______________________________________________
Cwg-client mailing list
Cwg-client@icann.org
Accepting that Greg, I wonder if we should have language saying that neither SO should not unreasonably block an action that only impacts the other SO? Or maybe this isn’t needed. Chuck From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 7:30 AM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: jrobinson@afilias.info; Alan Greenberg; CWG Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Important: Final Proposal for review until 23:59 UTC on 10 June Chuck, If I understand your point correctly, I don't think that's correct. Both of the SOs must approve. Each does not mean either, it means both. Greg On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 6:57 AM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> wrote: Another reason for using ‘each’ is that in some cases a problem may be essentially just a cc problem or just a g problem and in those cases it may not be appropriate for one of the SOs to be able to block an action. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 2:26 AM To: 'Alan Greenberg'; 'Greg Shatan' Cc: 'CWG' Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Important: Final Proposal for review until 23:59 UTC on 10 June Alan, Thank-you for your acceptance of the current wording. Please note that from my recall, Sidley proposed the introduction of “each” as legally less ambiguous. I believe the chat record from Tuesday’s meeting will confirm this but haven’t yet checked. If this is so, I suggest we stick with it (each). Jonathan From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca] Sent: 11 June 2015 04:46 To: Greg Shatan Cc: CWG Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Important: Final Proposal for review until 23:59 UTC on 10 June Understood. But to ensure proper intent and translation, I think less potentially ambiguous. Alan At 10/06/2015 08:34 PM, Greg Shatan wrote: Each means both in this sentence. (A bill requires approval of each house of Congress before it is sent to the President.) Either would mean one or the other. That said both also works. On Wednesday, June 10, 2015, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> > wrote: A few minutes late, but... In paragraph 125, page 24 of V4, I can live with the current wording about the optional Public Comment but meaningful AC/SO consultation. However, the wording change I requested to clarify that the BOTH the ccNSO and GNSO approval is needed was not made. ...triggered by a supermajority vote of each of the ccNSO and GNSO Councils ... should read ...triggered by a supermajority vote of BOTH of the ccNSO and GNSO Councils... (Caps added to highlight the change in this message. The "of" following "both" is probably not needed.) Alan At 09/06/2015 10:59 PM, Grace Abuhamad wrote: Forwarding again to Client Committee. From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org <mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org%20> > Date: Tuesday, June 9, 2015 at 5:46 PM To: Brenda Brewer <brenda.brewer@icann.org <mailto:brenda.brewer@icann.org%20> >, " cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>" < cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Important: Final Proposal for review until 23:59UTC on 10 June Dear all, During our meeting today, we had our 3rd and final reading of the Proposal. Changes were made live, and outstanding changes were noted as action items (see notes below). The staff team has reviewed the proposal and completed all actions listed. Please note that Sidley will provide a final review as well which includes some work on the implementation text in Section IV and the Term Sheet in Annex S. With this, the CWG-Stewardship now enters into a final review period that lasts until 23:59 UTC tomorrow (10 June). As noted on the call, the intention of the review period is to do a ‘proofread’ and notify the group of any errors. During this period of 26 hours, any statements or comments on the Proposal may also be sent to the group. As the Chairs noted on the call, if you are making a statement, please be sure to identify whether you do so as a member on behalf of a Chartering Organization, as an individual representing a specific organization, or as an individual with a personal remark/contribution. After 23:59 UTC on 10 June, the Chairs will work with staff to rectify any errors, update section VI.C. regarding statements, and deliver the Proposal to the Chartering Organizations on 11 June. Our call on 11 June will focus on how the CWG-Stewardship does its engagement, through its members and participants, to coalesce support for the Proposal among Chartering Organizations. In addition, there are two webinars on 11 June (one at 06:00 UTC and one at 13:00 UTC): https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-06-03-en. These webinars aim to provide a briefing to the broader community about the contents of the final proposal. Finally, as we head into ICANN53 in Buenos Aires, please refer to the schedule of sessions that relate to the CWG-Stewardship work: https://community.icann.org/x/EJg0Aw. Thank you all for your great work and dedication to the process. Please contact us if you have any questions regarding the process or administration over the next 48h. Best, Gramika (Grace+Marika) From: Brenda Brewer <brenda.brewer@icann.org <mailto:brenda.brewer@icann.org%20> > Date: Tuesday, June 9, 2015 at 4:01 PM To: " cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>" < cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Notes, Recordings, Transcript CWG IANA #58 9 June 2015 Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CWG IANA Meeting # 58 on 9 June 2015 are available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53778032 Kind regards, Brenda Action Items Paragraph 108: Action: In document text, remove --> "as it is customary" Paragraph 134: Action: conform text to the defined terms used in the rest of the Proposal, among other things Paragraph 155: Action: remove capitals in "standing committee" Section IV: Action: Sidley to provide text on PTI implementation. Annex H: Action: remove escalation paragraph and preamble Annex J: Action: edits to #3 should be cross-checked with CSC Charter Action: conform text to the defined terms used in the rest of the Proposal, among other things Notes 1. Opening Remarks · A big thanks to all who contributed to edits. · Following closure of this meeting, staff will send final document to the CWG. · CWG will then have 24h to notify the group of any errors. Intention is not to reopen issues, but to focus on proofing --> DUE AT 23:59 UTC on 10 JUNE · Chairs will transmit to SO/ACs on 11 June with covering note. 2. Finalizing the Review Tool & Responses Can expect a final version to be circulated in the next 24h. Staff is working on consistency-checking across the responses. The document is frozen as of 1 June. 3. Update on questions to ICANN Finance & Legal The letter and responses from ICANN are posted on Wiki: https://community.icann.org/x/7Jk0Aw. <https://community.icann.org/x/7Jk0Aw> Staff have included the responses in Section IV (and included an Annex to for the Finance information). 4. Last Review of Final Proposal On screen now is version 5. The difference between the previous version and the latest is that the Chairs took some time to review which items were still open and which had been resolved. Tried to focus CWG on the key outstanding issues. This latest version also includes the DT-A annex which has now been included. Paragraph 108: Change the wording from "ringfence" to "isolate" and remove the definition in the footnote. ICANN has control and ownership of PTI and the implementation documents will assure against further transfer out of assets. Action: In document text, remove --> "as it is customary" Paragraph 121/ Footnote 11: footnote is satisfactory. Paragraph 125: make clear "supermajority from both" ccNSO and GNSO. Also including the CSC as part of the remit. Paragraph 128: covered by resolution in paragraph 121 Paragraph 134: SLEs discussion -- principles are included in annex and summary is included in the section now. Action: conform text to the defined terms used in the rest of the Proposal, among other things Paragraph 155: Action: remove capitals in "standing committee" Section IV: Action: Sidley to provide text on PTI implementation. Annex G: edit to the Remedial Action Procedures table Annex H: Action: remove escalation paragraph and preamble Annex J: Action: edits to #3 should be cross-checked with CSC Charter Term Sheet: staff to revise with comments from Sidley and Greg 5. Overall Timeline / Milestones a. Communications b. Webinars on 11 June c. Sessions at ICANN 53 6. AOB a. Thursday 11 June -- 1 hour call about CWG engagement b. Canceling Tuesday 16 June call c. Client Committee on Friday 12 June 7. Closing Remarks After proposal is sent, 24h to respond with comments or statements DUE AT 23:59 UTC on 10 JUNE _______________________________________________ Cwg-client mailing list Cwg-client@icann.org<mailto:Cwg-client@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-client
I would hope that goes without saying! On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 7:32 AM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
Accepting that Greg, I wonder if we should have language saying that neither SO should not unreasonably block an action that only impacts the other SO? Or maybe this isn’t needed.
Chuck
*From:* Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] *Sent:* Thursday, June 11, 2015 7:30 AM *To:* Gomes, Chuck *Cc:* jrobinson@afilias.info; Alan Greenberg; CWG
*Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Important: Final Proposal for review until 23:59 UTC on 10 June
Chuck,
If I understand your point correctly, I don't think that's correct. Both of the SOs must approve. Each does not mean either, it means both.
Greg
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 6:57 AM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
Another reason for using ‘each’ is that in some cases a problem may be essentially just a cc problem or just a g problem and in those cases it may not be appropriate for one of the SOs to be able to block an action.
Chuck
*From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Jonathan Robinson *Sent:* Thursday, June 11, 2015 2:26 AM *To:* 'Alan Greenberg'; 'Greg Shatan'
*Cc:* 'CWG' *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Important: Final Proposal for review until 23:59 UTC on 10 June
Alan,
Thank-you for your acceptance of the current wording.
Please note that from my recall, Sidley proposed the introduction of “each” as legally less ambiguous. I believe the chat record from Tuesday’s meeting will confirm this but haven’t yet checked.
If this is so, I suggest we stick with it (each).
Jonathan
*From:* Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>] *Sent:* 11 June 2015 04:46 *To:* Greg Shatan *Cc:* CWG *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Important: Final Proposal for review until 23:59 UTC on 10 June
Understood. But to ensure proper intent and translation, I think less potentially ambiguous.
Alan
At 10/06/2015 08:34 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:
Each means both in this sentence. (A bill requires approval of each house of Congress before it is sent to the President.) Either would mean one or the other.
That said both also works.
On Wednesday, June 10, 2015, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca > wrote:
A few minutes late, but...
In paragraph 125, page 24 of V4, I can live with the current wording about the optional Public Comment but meaningful AC/SO consultation.
However, the wording change I requested to clarify that the BOTH the ccNSO and GNSO approval is needed was not made.
...triggered by a supermajority vote of each of the ccNSO and GNSO Councils ...
should read
...triggered by a supermajority vote of BOTH of the ccNSO and GNSO Councils...
(Caps added to highlight the change in this message. The "of" following "both" is probably not needed.)
Alan
At 09/06/2015 10:59 PM, Grace Abuhamad wrote:
Forwarding again to Client Committee.
From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org <grace.abuhamad@icann.org%20>>
Date: Tuesday, June 9, 2015 at 5:46 PM
To: Brenda Brewer <brenda.brewer@icann.org <brenda.brewer@icann.org%20>>, " cwg-stewardship@icann.org" < cwg-stewardship@icann.org>
Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Important: Final Proposal for review until 23:59UTC on 10 June
Dear all,
During our meeting today, we had our 3rd and final reading of the Proposal. Changes were made live, and outstanding changes were noted as action items (see notes below). The staff team has reviewed the proposal and completed all actions listed. Please note that Sidley will provide a final review as well which includes some work on the implementation text in Section IV and the Term Sheet in Annex S.
With this, the CWG-Stewardship now enters into a final review period that lasts until 23:59 UTC tomorrow (10 June). As noted on the call, the intention of the review period is to do a ‘proofread’ and notify the group of any errors. During this period of 26 hours, any statements or comments on the Proposal may also be sent to the group. As the Chairs noted on the call, if you are making a statement, please be sure to identify whether you do so as a member on behalf of a Chartering Organization, as an individual representing a specific organization, or as an individual with a personal remark/contribution.
After 23:59 UTC on 10 June, the Chairs will work with staff to rectify any errors, update section VI.C. regarding statements, and deliver the Proposal to the Chartering Organizations on 11 June. Our call on 11 June will focus on how the CWG-Stewardship does its engagement, through its members and participants, to coalesce support for the Proposal among Chartering Organizations. In addition, there are two webinars on 11 June (one at 06:00 UTC and one at 13:00 UTC): https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-06-03-en. These webinars aim to provide a briefing to the broader community about the contents of the final proposal. Finally, as we head into ICANN53 in Buenos Aires, please refer to the schedule of sessions that relate to the CWG-Stewardship work: https://community.icann.org/x/EJg0Aw.
Thank you all for your great work and dedication to the process. Please contact us if you have any questions regarding the process or administration over the next 48h.
Best,
Gramika (Grace+Marika)
From: Brenda Brewer <brenda.brewer@icann.org <brenda.brewer@icann.org%20>>
Date: Tuesday, June 9, 2015 at 4:01 PM
To: " cwg-stewardship@icann.org" < cwg-stewardship@icann.org>
Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Notes, Recordings, Transcript CWG IANA #58 9 June 2015
Dear all,
The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CWG IANA Meeting # 58 on 9 June 2015 are available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53778032
Kind regards,
Brenda
Action Items
Paragraph 108: Action: In document text, remove --> "as it is customary"
Paragraph 134: Action: conform text to the defined terms used in the rest of the Proposal, among other things
Paragraph 155: Action: remove capitals in "standing committee"
Section IV: Action: Sidley to provide text on PTI implementation.
Annex H: Action: remove escalation paragraph and preamble
Annex J: Action: edits to #3 should be cross-checked with CSC Charter
Action: conform text to the defined terms used in the rest of the Proposal, among other things Notes
1. Opening Remarks
· A big thanks to all who contributed to edits.
· Following closure of this meeting, staff will send final document to the CWG.
· CWG will then have 24h to notify the group of any errors. Intention is not to reopen issues, but to focus on proofing --> DUE AT 23:59 UTC on 10 JUNE
· Chairs will transmit to SO/ACs on 11 June with covering note.
2. Finalizing the Review Tool & Responses
Can expect a final version to be circulated in the next 24h. Staff is working on consistency-checking across the responses. The document is frozen as of 1 June.
3. Update on questions to ICANN Finance & Legal
The letter and responses from ICANN are posted on Wiki: https://community.icann.org/x/7Jk0Aw. <https://community.icann.org/x/7Jk0Aw>
Staff have included the responses in Section IV (and included an Annex to for the Finance information).
4. Last Review of Final Proposal
On screen now is version 5. The difference between the previous version and the latest is that the Chairs took some time to review which items were still open and which had been resolved. Tried to focus CWG on the key outstanding issues. This latest version also includes the DT-A annex which has now been included.
Paragraph 108: Change the wording from "ringfence" to "isolate" and remove the definition in the footnote. ICANN has control and ownership of PTI and the implementation documents will assure against further transfer out of assets.
Action: In document text, remove --> "as it is customary"
Paragraph 121/ Footnote 11: footnote is satisfactory.
Paragraph 125: make clear "supermajority from both" ccNSO and GNSO. Also including the CSC as part of the remit.
Paragraph 128: covered by resolution in paragraph 121
Paragraph 134: SLEs discussion -- principles are included in annex and summary is included in the section now.
Action: conform text to the defined terms used in the rest of the Proposal, among other things
Paragraph 155: Action: remove capitals in "standing committee"
Section IV: Action: Sidley to provide text on PTI implementation.
Annex G: edit to the Remedial Action Procedures table
Annex H: Action: remove escalation paragraph and preamble
Annex J: Action: edits to #3 should be cross-checked with CSC Charter
Term Sheet: staff to revise with comments from Sidley and Greg
5. Overall Timeline / Milestones
a. Communications
b. Webinars on 11 June
c. Sessions at ICANN 53
6. AOB
a. Thursday 11 June -- 1 hour call about CWG engagement
b. Canceling Tuesday 16 June call
c. Client Committee on Friday 12 June
7. Closing Remarks
After proposal is sent, 24h to respond with comments or statements DUE AT 23:59 UTC on 10 JUNE
_______________________________________________
Cwg-client mailing list
Cwg-client@icann.org
participants (5)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Gomes, Chuck -
Greg Shatan -
Jonathan Robinson -
Steve Crocker