This is good, as long as conclusion of tasks is so broad. As a non-native speaker of English I would be nervous if "distinct" as in use early when talking about the communities was used in isolation. To be more explicit: some individuals active in gnso (definitely not a consensus view of gnso) say when the ACs comment on proposals that the ACs should participate inside the PDP of gnso. As ICANN processes are *now* that is not possible, although it should be recognized that (at least) two cross community working groups inside ICANN is trying to resolve this issue. That we must share information earlier and not build silos. I and SSAC strongly support earlier cross constituency work in the PDPs owned by gnso and ccnso but we do not know how to implement it. I do not want those imenentation issues to spill over to the CG, and I definitely do not want those *known* issues that are worked on delay the transition. This is also why SSAC strongly support the shared initiative between ccnso and gnso to have an explicit cc-wg on iana transition issues, that feed into CG, and I encourage gac members and others involved in ICANN specific issues to be active there so that those kind of discussions do not spill over to the CG. CG is coordinating. As written in this charter. Thanks all for the hard work you do! I promise to do my share when vacation is over. Patrik
On 18 jul 2014, at 14:01, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> wrote:
As agreed, I have taken what we had at the end of this morning’s session, taken into account Paul’s suggested edits, Joe’s suggested edits, and showed this to Milton, Alissa, and Joe. We four believe it is ready. (But I have not read the mailing list in the meanwhile.)
The document has change marks from v5->v6.
Jari
<charterv6.docx>
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg