[CCWG-ACCT] Suggestion about decription of requirements identified by CWG-Stewardship

Izumi Okutani izumi at nic.ad.jp
Fri Apr 24 22:32:07 UTC 2015

Dear all,

I found the meetings in the past two days extremely helpful in setting directions on points which needed confirmation of support (or no support) by CCWG members. That was great.

Before I offload my head from ICANN Accountability issues over the weekend, I would like to raise one point here on the mailing list, which I suggested on the chat at one of the calls on Thursday 23 April.

For the mechanisms we are proposing for WP1 and WP2, may I suggest to reflect in our proposal for the public comments, the mechanisms identified as requirements in CWG-Stewardship? 

I would think it is not complicated, if we add a sub-section such as "Requirements identified by CWG" in Section "5. Input Gathered from the Community - Required Community Powers", and refer to specific mechanisms in WS1 and WS2 which correspond to CWG requirements, for example. 

This would:
 -  Make our considerations for requirements look more comprehensive, in addition to the requirements identified through the public comments which is already in the current draft of our proposal.
 -  Helps the readers to have a better understanding on why this particular mechanism is needed and how it helps, when considering their feedback. 
 -  Gives more concrete assurance to CWG-Stewardship members that CCWG are addressing their requirements in a publicly visible form.


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list