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

Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch
Sat Apr 25 08:39:10 UTC 2015

Looks like a very useful idea.


Jorge Cancio

Von meinem iPhone gesendet

> Am 25.04.2015 um 00:33 schrieb Izumi Okutani <izumi at nic.ad.jp>:
> 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.
> Thanks,
> Izumi
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list